C.F.R. » Title 49 » CHAPTER III—FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION › SUBCHAPTER B—FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY REGULATIONS › PART 390—FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY REGULATIONS; GENERAL › Subpart B—General Requirements and Information

49 C.F.R. § 390.11

Motor carrier to require observance of driver regulations

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

Whenever in part 325 of subchapter A or in this subchapter a duty is prescribed for a driver or a prohibition is imposed upon the driver, it shall be the duty of the motor carrier to require observance of such duty or prohibition. If the motor carrier is a driver, the driver shall likewise be bound.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 29 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1982–2025 · leading case: Harris Ex Rel. the Est. of Ward v. Fedex Nat'l LTL, Inc., 760 F.3d 780 (8th Cir. 2014).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Harris Ex Rel. the Est. of Ward v. Fedex Nat'l LTL, Inc., 760 F.3d 780 (8th Cir. 2014). · cites it 3× “Rather, plaintiffs argue that FedEx as a “motor carrier” subject to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (“FMCSR”) had a nondelegable duty under Nebraska law 2 to ensure that Fresh Start and its drivers, as independent contractors, adhered to those safety standards by…”
Crocker v. Morales-Santana, 2014 ND 182 (N.D. 2014). · cites it 4× “[¶24] The federal district court also rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that FedEx had a nondelegable duty under 49 C.F.R. § 390.11 , which generally requires a “motor carrier” to observe duties or prohibitions imposed upon a “driver.”
North Am. Van Lines, Inc. v. Emmons, 50 S.W.3d 103 (Tex. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “8 (1998), which requires motor carriers to have their drivers log their driving and duty hours according to a specified format; and (c) 49 C.F.R. § 390.11 (1988), which requires that motor carriers have their drivers comply with federal regulations, including the two cited…”
Bogdanski v. Budzik, 408 P.3d 1156 (Wyo. 2018). · cites it 2× “He points out that any duty FedEx has arises from 49 C.F.R. § 390.11 , which imposes a duty on motor carriers like' FedEx to ensure that its contractors’ drivers obey federal safety rules.”
Ooida Risk Retention Grp., Inc. v. Williams, 579 F.3d 469 (5th Cir. 2009). “See also 49 C.F.R. 390.11 ("[i]f the motor carrier is a driver, the driver shall likewise be bound” to driver regulations).”
Harris v. Velichkov, 860 F. Supp. 2d 970 (D. Neb. 2012). “The plaintiffs argue that FedEx had a nondelegable duty based upon 49 C.F.R. § 390.11 . 3 That section of the federal motor carrier safety regulations provides that [w]henever in part 325 of subchapter A [dealing with noise emissions] or in this subchapter [containing general…”
Truckers United for Saf. v. Fed. High. Admin., 139 F.3d 934 (D.C. Cir. 1998). · cites it 2× “49 C.F.R. §§ 390.11 , 395.3, 8 (1997). The Administration has developed and periodically updated regulatory guidance in question-and-answer format to assist parties bound by these regulations.”
Dennis Benson, Michael Clarey, John Zimmer, William Riddock, Obrad Zivojnovity & Patrick Clayton v. Universal Ambulance Serv., Inc., 675 F.2d 783 (6th Cir. 1982). “Seé 49 CFR § 390.11 . More questionable is the proposition that non-driver attendants or dispatchers affect the safety of operation of the vehicle.”
Stallings v. Werner Enter., Inc., 598 F. Supp. 2d 1203 (D. Kan. 2009). “He opined that Werner’s failure to terminate Cohen despite knowledge of his ongoing record violated Werner’s duty under 49 CFR §§ 390.11 and 391.25. Werner argues that courts have granted summary judgment on negligent hiring claims when there is evidence the employer complied…”
Saf. v. Fed. High. Admin., 139 F.3d 934 (D.C. Cir. 1998). · cites it 2× “49 C.F.R. §§ 390.11 , 395.3, .8 (1997). The Administration has developed and periodically updated regulatory guidance in question-and-answer format to assist parties bound by these regulations.”
Shifflett v. Routhier (W.D. Va. 2024). · cites it 3× “Shifflett contends that under 49 C.F.R. § 390.11 and 49 C.F.R. § 392.2 , Couture has an affirmative duty to ensure that its drivers follow the FMCSRs.”
Jessica Jones v. David Wiseman (6th Cir. 2020). · cites it 2× “131 (addressing test manuals for commercial operators), and 49 C.F.R. § 390.11 (requiring motor carriers to require compliance with FMCSRs).”
Show all 29 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.