49 C.F.R. § 393.100
Applicability and general requirements of cargo securement standards
(a) Applicability. The rules in this subpart are applicable to trucks, truck tractors, semitrailers, full trailers, and pole trailers.
(b) Prevention against loss of load. Each commercial motor vehicle must, when transporting cargo on public roads, be loaded and equipped, and the cargo secured, in accordance with this subpart to prevent the cargo from leaking, spilling, blowing or falling from the motor vehicle.
(c) Prevention against shifting of load. Cargo must be contained, immobilized or secured in accordance with this subpart to prevent shifting upon or within the vehicle to such an extent that the vehicle's stability or maneuverability is adversely affected.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1995–2023 · leading case: Charles Spence v. Esab Grp Inc
Charles Spence v. Esab Grp Inc (2010)
“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.”
Great West Casualty Co. v. National Casualty Co. (2014)
“National then proceeds to take issue with Great West’s contention that the repair was required to avoid Avery, as the federally-certificated carrier, being exposed to a violation of 49 C.F.R. 393.100(b), which is a federal motor carrier regulation requiring that cargos be…”
Wang v. Marziani (1995)
“With respect to Marziani, a reasonable jury could conclude that logging more than seventy hours during an eight-day period, falsifying the duty log and failing to secure all cargo, all in violation of Department of Transportation safety regulations, see 49 C.F.R. §§ 393.100 ,…”
SAFESHRED, INC. v. Martinez (2010)
“" 49 C.F.R. § 393.100 (2002). Section 393.104(b) specifically addresses the straps used to secure a load, stating, "All tiedowns .”
Stroder v. Hilcorp Energy Co. (2018)
“49 C.F.R. §§ 393.100 - 393.136 (2018). These federal regulations suggests that carriers "should have the final responsibility for the loads they haul" because no shipper can force a carrier to accept an unsafe load.”
Wells v. US Foodservice, Inc. (2004)
“Wells’ diversity action in negligence sought to remove his recovery from under the Act by contending Foodservice’s failure to provide a load lock 1 on the trailer to prevent the cargo from shifting was an intentional omission under 49 C.F.R. § 393.100 of the Federal Motor…”
Moorehead v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc. (2021)
“” 49 C.F.R. § 393.100 (b)–(c). In as much as the regulations focus on road safety, it seems a stretch to say the regulations require a motor carrier to do something for the benefit of someone like Plaintiff who was not injured after cargo spilled on the road or made his vehicle…”
Murrah v. TDY Industries, LLC (2021)
“” 49 C.F.R. § 393.100 (c). Defendant argues that these regulations alone establish that it owed no duty to Plaintiff to properly load or secure the materials.”
Bertram v. Progressive Southeastern Insurance Co (2023)
“122 What are the rules for securing paper rolls? 22 49 CFR § 393.100 . 23 Id. (a) Applicability.”
Slaton v. Climax Molybdenum Company (2020)
“Plaintiff seeks relief in two claims: common law negligence in loading the tractor trailer (Count 1) and negligence per se in violation of federal regulations 49 C.F.R. §§ 393.100 , 393.102, 383.106, and 393.”
Charles Spence v. Esab Grp Inc (2010)
“] Subsection (c) of 49 C.F.R. § 393.100 provides that “[c]argo must be contained, immobilized or secured .”
Safeshred, Inc. v. Louis Martinez, III (2010)
“" 49 C.F.R. § 393.100 (2002). Section 393.104(b) specifically addresses the straps used to secure a load, stating, "All tiedowns .”
— 49 C.F.R. § 393.100(b) — 1 case
Great West Casualty Co. v. National Casualty Co. (2014)
“National then proceeds to take issue with Great West’s contention that the repair was required to avoid Avery, as the federally-certificated carrier, being exposed to a violation of 49 C.F.R. 393.100(b), which is a federal motor carrier regulation requiring that cargos be…”
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.