49 C.F.R. § 391.1
Scope of the rules in this part; additional qualifications; duties of carrier-drivers
(a) The rules in this part establish minimum qualifications for persons who drive commercial motor vehicles as, for, or on behalf of motor carriers. The rules in this part also establish minimum duties of motor carriers with respect to the qualifications of their drivers.
(b) An individual who meets the definition of both a motor carrier and a driver employed by that motor carrier must comply with both the rules in this part that apply to motor carriers and the rules in this part that apply to drivers.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 36
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1970–2026 · leading case: Richard Samson v. Fed. Express Corp., 746 F.3d 1196 (11th Cir. 2014).
Richard Samson v. Fed. Express Corp., 746 F.3d 1196 (11th Cir. 2014). “” 49 C.F.R. § 391.1 (a). This includes being “medically certified as physically qualified” to operate a commercial motor vehicle, i.”
Ooida Risk Retention Grp., Inc. v. Williams, 579 F.3d 469 (5th Cir. 2009). “49 C.F.R. § 391.1 (b). See also 49 C.F.R.”
Everett v. 357 Corp., 21 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 1362 (Mass. 2009). “See 49 C.F.R. § 391.1 (1991) (regulation promulgated by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration of the United States Department of Transportation [DOT] describing rules establishing “minimum qualifications for persons who drive motor vehicles” for motor carriers, and…”
Campbell v. Fed. Express Corp., 918 F. Supp. 912 (D. Maryland 1996). “” 49 C.F.R. § 391.1 . Under the regulations, a physician must certify “[i]n the interest of public safety” that the driver does not have any physical, mental, or organic defect of such a nature as to affect the “driver’s ability to operate safely a commercial motor vehicle.”
Brunson v. E & L Transp. Co., 441 N.W.2d 48 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989). “In Dep’t of Civil Rights ex rel Lanphar v A & C Carriers, 12 we addressed the argument that dot regulations concerning driver qualifications preempted the Michigan Handicappers’ Civil Rights Act, 13 stating: [T]his is not a case of conflict preemption because compliance with the…”
Thoms v. ABF Freight Sys., Inc., 31 F. Supp. 2d 1119 (E.D. Wis. 1998). “” 49 C.F.R. § 391.1 (1994). Specifically, the FMCSRs stated: (a) A person shall not drive a motor vehicle unless he is qualified to drive a motor vehicle.”
Robert Parker v. Crete Carrier Corp., 839 F.3d 717 (8th Cir. 2016). “See 49 C.F.R. § 391.1 (a). Under the regulations, drivers must get medical examinations from FMCSA-certified examiners every two years.”
Hollywood Trucking, Inc. v. Watters, 895 N.E.2d 3 (Ill. App. Ct. 2008). “See 49 C.F.R. §§ 391.1 , 391.11(a) (2005). Each motor carrier is required to investigate and make inquiries with respect to the backgrounds and qualifications of the driver it employs.”
In Re Fedex Ground Package Sys., Inc., 734 F. Supp. 2d 557 (N.D. Ind. 2010). “14; see also 49 C.F.R. § 391.1 et seq. FedEx, however, has “adopted into policy many higher safety standards than those mínimums prescribed in the federal motor carrier safety regulations to help business efficiency and reduce highway crashes.”
Clarendon Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 666 S.E.2d 567 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008). “and 49 CFR § 391.1 et seq. “Statutory employment is a theory of vicarious liability created by the FMCSR.”
Serna v. Pettey Leach Trucking, Inc., 2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6866 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003). “35 ), driver qualifications ( 49 C.F.R. § 391.1 et seq.), driving regulations ( 49 C.”
Houston v. Bedgood, 588 S.E.2d 437 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003). “and 49 CFR § 391.1 et seq. The Houstons contend that summary judgment for Dr.”
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.