49 C.F.R. § 392.9

Inspection of cargo, cargo securement devices and systems

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

(a) General. A driver may not operate a commercial motor vehicle and a motor carrier may not require or permit a driver to operate a commercial motor vehicle unless—

(1) The commercial motor vehicle's cargo is properly distributed and adequately secured as specified in §§ 393.100 through 393.136 of this subchapter.

(2) The commercial motor vehicle's tailgate, tailboard, doors, tarpaulins, spare tire and other equipment used in its operation, and the means of fastening the commercial motor vehicle's cargo, are secured; and

(3) The commercial motor vehicle's cargo or any other object does not obscure the driver's view ahead or to the right or left sides (except for drivers of self-steer dollies), interfere with the free movement of his/her arms or legs, prevent his/her free and ready access to accessories required for emergencies, or prevent the free and ready exit of any person from the commercial motor vehicle's cab or driver's compartment.

(b) Drivers of trucks and truck tractors. Except as provided in paragraph (b)(4) of this section, the driver of a truck or truck tractor must—

(1) Assure himself/herself that the provisions of paragraph (a) of this section have been complied with before he/she drives that commercial motor vehicle;

(2) Inspect the cargo and the devices used to secure the cargo within the first 50 miles after beginning a trip and cause any adjustments to be made to the cargo or load securement devices as necessary, including adding more securement devices, to ensure that cargo cannot shift on or within, or fall from the commercial motor vehicle; and

(3) Reexamine the commercial motor vehicle's cargo and its load securement devices during the course of transportation and make any necessary adjustment to the cargo or load securement devices, including adding more securement devices, to ensure that cargo cannot shift on or within, or fall from, the commercial motor vehicle. Reexamination and any necessary adjustments must be made whenever—

(i) The driver makes a change of his/her duty status; or

(ii) The commercial motor vehicle has been driven for 3 hours; or

(iii) The commercial motor vehicle has been driven for 150 miles, whichever occurs first.

(4) The rules in this paragraph (b) do not apply to the driver of a sealed commercial motor vehicle who has been ordered not to open it to inspect its cargo or to the driver of a commercial motor vehicle that has been loaded in a manner that makes inspection of its cargo impracticable.

[67 FR 61224, Sept. 27, 2002, as amended at 72 FR 55703, Oct. 1, 2007]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 51 cases (11 in the last 5 years), 1979–2025 · leading case: Talbert v. Restoration Hardware, Inc., 251 So. 3d 532 (La. Ct. App. 2018).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Talbert v. Restoration Hardware, Inc., 251 So. 3d 532 (La. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 5× “Talbert argues that under 49 CFR 392.9, issues of material fact remain as to whether Ozark had a duty to inspect the load for safety, and that the trial court erred in finding a lack of evidence that shifting during transit caused the boxes to fall on Mr.”

Hensley v. Nat'l Freight Transp., Inc., 668 S.E.2d 349 (N.C. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 4× “]" 49 C.F.R. § 392.9 (a)(1) (2007). Further, under these regulations, the driver of the truck has an affirmative duty to ensure the truck's cargo is properly distributed and adequately secured before he operates the vehicle.”

Charles Spence v. Esab Grp Inc, 623 F.3d 212 (3rd Cir. 2010). · cites it 2× “In this regard, it found persuasive the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations that impose upon the carrier the obligation to safely secure cargo to prevent shifting during transit, citing 49 C.F.R. § 392.9 (a) and (b), as well as 49 C.”

Camp v. TNT Logistics Corp., 553 F.3d 502 (7th Cir. 2009). · cites it 2× “Under 49 C.F.R. § 392.9 (a)(1), “[a] driver may not operate a commercial motor vehicle and a motor carrier may not require or permit a driver to operate a commercial motor vehicle unless 1) the commercial motor vehicle’s cargo is properly distributed and adequately secured as…”

Smart v. Am. Welding & Tank Co., 826 A.2d 570 (N.H. 2003). · cites it 3× “See 49 C.F.R. § 392.9 (a)(1) (2002) (revised 2002).”

Decker v. New England Pub. Warehouse, Inc., 2000 ME 76 (Me. 2000). · cites it 2× “See 49 C.F.R. § 392.9 (b)(1) (2000). By the same token, a driver must take responsibility for the safety of his or her cargo by inspecting and securing the load.”

Marta Ramirez, as Pers. Rep. & Heir of Ronald Monroy v. Noble Energy, Inc., 521 S.W.3d 851 (Tex. App. 2017). “See 49 CFR 392.9. This evidence conclusively establishes that fact against Plaintiff.”

Edward Bujnoch, Judy Bujnoch, Jose C. Aguillon, as Next Friend of Tinley Bujnoch Aguillon, a Minor Child & Monica Janssen, as Dependent Adm'x of the Est. of Amanda Lauren Bujnoch v. Nat'l Oilwell Varco, L.P., 542 S.W.3d 2 (Tex. App. 2017). “Except as provided in paragraph (b)(4) of this section, the driver of a truck or truck tractor must— (1) Assure himself/herself that the provisions of paragraph (a) of this section have been complied with before he/she drives that commercial motor vehicle; 49 C.F.R. § 392.9 ;…”

Franklin Stainless Corp., a New York Corp. v. Marlo Transp. Corp., a New Jersey Corp., 748 F.2d 865 (4th Cir. 1984). “49 C.F.R. § 392.9 (1979). The jury’s verdict against Franklin, which under the court’s instruction could be based solely on improper loading, establishes conclusively that improper loading and the consequent shift of the cargo was a proximate cause of the accident.”

Vargo-Schaper Ex Rel. Schaper v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 619 F.3d 845 (8th Cir. 2010). “Weyerhaeuser did not have a duty however, to prevent or correct any open or obvious loading defect.”

Nora Johnson, Adm'x of the Est. of Melvin Mattingly, Deceased v. S.O.S. Transp., Inc., Cent. Transp., Inc., 926 F.2d 516 (6th Cir. 1991). “, 49 C.F.R. § 392.9 (1989) (driver to assure safe loading of vehicle); § 396.”

Castine Energy Constr., Inc. v. T.T. Dunphy, Inc., 2004 ME 129 (Me. 2004). “49 C.F.R. §§ 392.9 (b)(1), 393.102(c) (effective until 2002).”

Show all 51 citing cases →

— 49 C.F.R. § 392.9(a)(1) — 2 cases

Dean McMaster v. Dte Energy Co. (Mich. Ct. App. 2020).

J. F. Allen Co. v. Hohman (4th Cir. 1999).

— 49 C.F.R. § 392.9(b)(1) — 4 cases

Dean McMaster v. Dte Energy Co. (Mich. 2022).

Romero v. Irving Tissue Co. Ltd. (N.D.N.Y. 2023).

— 49 C.F.R. § 392.9(b)(4) — 3 cases

Dean McMaster v. Dte Energy Co. (Mich. 2022).

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.