49 C.F.R. § 392.14
Hazardous conditions; extreme caution
Extreme caution in the operation of a commercial motor vehicle shall be exercised when hazardous conditions, such as those caused by snow, ice, sleet, fog, mist, rain, dust, or smoke, adversely affect visibility or traction. Speed shall be reduced when such conditions exist. If conditions become sufficiently dangerous, the operation of the commercial motor vehicle shall be discontinued and shall not be resumed until the commercial motor vehicle can be safely operated. Whenever compliance with the foregoing provisions of this rule increases hazard to passengers, the commercial motor vehicle may be operated to the nearest point at which the safety of passengers is assured.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 32
cases (12 in the last 5 years), 1972–2026 · leading case: Mowry v. United Parcel Service
Mowry v. United Parcel Service (2005)
“Invoking Article 18 of the CBA and the federal regulation it incorporates, 49 C.F.R. § 392.14 , 1 Mr. Mowry argued as a defense to his discharge that he had reasonably apprehended “the road conditions were such that to continue would have caused serious injury to himself or the…”
Yoder v. Ferguson (2008)
“14 ( 49 C.F.R. § 392.14 (1995)) specifically applies to truck drivers and mandates the use of "extreme caution" anytime snow, ice, sleet, fog, mist, rain, dust, or smoke adversely affect driving conditions.”
Dixon v. Hot Shot Express, Inc. (2010)
“Thereafter, Dixon filed a motion for a partial summary judgment, contending that the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, specifically 49 C.F.R. § 392.14 , enacted pursuant to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Act, 49 U.”
George v. Estate of Baker (2006)
“" 49 C.F.R. § 392.14 (2005). 3 . See 4 Minn.”
Kimberlin v. PM Transport, Inc. (2002)
“14 of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, 49 C.F.R. § 392.14 (1995), which has been adopted as Virginia law.”
Florio v. Tilley (2007)
“1-24-18 (2007) (incorporating 49 C.F.R. § 392.14 , which provides: "Extreme caution in the operation of a commercial motor vehicle shall be exercised when hazardous conditions, such as those caused by snow [or] ice .”
Freudiger v. Keller (2003)
“Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, 49 C.F.R. § 392.14 (1995). The director of the Texas Department of Public Safety has adopted this federal regulation as part of the Texas Department of Transportation’s own rules concerning the operation of commercial motor vehicles.”
Usher v. CHARLES BLALOCK & SONS, INC. (2010)
“” He acknowledged that 49 C.F.R. 392.14 requires a driver of a commercial vehicle to use “[ejxtreme caution .”
Weaver v. Chavez (2005)
“( 49 C.F.R. § 392.14 (2005).) Respondents contend that the phrasing of the last clause of the basic speed law, “and in no event at a speed which endangers the safety of persons or property” (Veh.”
Whitfield Tank Lines, Inc. v. Navajo Freight Lines, Inc. (1977)
“Refusal of an Instruction on Violation of a Federal Regulation Federal regulation, 49 C.F.R. § 392.14 (1976) provides that "[e]xtreme caution in the operation of a motor vehicle shall be exercised when hazardous conditions, such as those caused by snow, ice, sleet, fog, mist,…”
Mowry v. United Parcel Service, Inc. (2008)
“See 49 C.F.R. § 392.14 (“Extreme caution in the operation of a commercial motor vehicle shall be exercised when hazardous conditions .”
Joyce Labbee, by Pearl Labbee, Next Friend v. Roadway Express, Inc. (1972)
“VIOLATION OF STATUTE Plaintiff alleges that the trial court erred in refusing to give two instructions regarding the effect of a safety provision of the United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, which is- set out in 49 C.F.R. § 392.14 . The…”
— 49 C.F.R. § 392.14(g) — 1 case
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.