A trucking company’s hiring file can change the questions asked after a crash. If the driver had a documented history of unsafe backing, for example, the investigation may need to examine what the company knew before assigning that driver to a difficult delivery. The collision itself does not prove that hiring or keeping the driver was negligent. The earlier warning, the company’s response, and the connection to the crash all matter.
Negligent hiring concerns the decision to bring a driver into the operation. Negligent retention concerns keeping the driver in service after information about a safety problem becomes available. Training, supervision, and entrustment can raise related questions, but they should be tied to specific conduct rather than added as interchangeable accusations.
The carrier’s own conduct can remain part of the case
Louisiana distinguishes a claim based on an employer’s own negligence from responsibility for an employee’s negligence. Civil Code article 2315 supplies the general fault rule. Article 2320 addresses employer responsibility for employees acting in their assigned functions.
In Martin v. Thomas, decided June 29, 2022, the Louisiana Supreme Court held that an employer’s admission that its driver acted within the course and scope of employment does not, by itself, eliminate claims for the employer’s negligent hiring, supervision, training, retention, or entrustment. The court reversed a partial summary judgment dismissing those claims.
That ruling allows both paths to be examined. It does not establish that the employer was negligent or that any particular personnel record is admissible. The plaintiff still needs evidence supporting the carrier’s duty, breach, causation, and resulting harm. Our discussion of potential defendants after a truck crash places these employer claims alongside the separate roles of equipment owners, brokers, and other businesses.
A warning matters most when its timing and meaning are clear
Consider a hypothetical backing collision. Earlier reports describing similar backing incidents may warrant examination, especially if a supervisor received them and promised training that never occurred. An unrelated administrative mistake in the same driver’s file may have much less to do with why the collision happened.
The investigation should also consider evidence that favors the carrier: an inaccurate report, a documented correction, completed training, or information received only after the crash. A fair chronology distinguishes what the company knew from what investigators learned later.
Scroll horizontally to see all columns. Use the arrow keys when the table is focused.
| Possible warning | Records to compare | Question that remains |
|---|---|---|
| Prior similar driving incidents | Incident reports, driving history, supervisor messages, and corrective-action records | Did the company receive reliable notice of the same kind of risk before this crash? |
| An incomplete hiring investigation | Application, requests to prior employers, responses, and documented contact attempts | Was a required inquiry omitted, or did the carrier make documented efforts to obtain the information? |
| Repeated safety complaints | Original complaints, investigation notes, training records, and later assignments | Were the complaints substantiated, and was the response reasonable for the identified problem? |
| A questionable annual driving review | The actual motor vehicle record and the dated review note | Did the reviewer consider the information available at the time? |
| A gap in testing documentation | Verified test information and any records supporting a regulatory exception | Was testing required, and what does the gap establish about this collision? |
What the federal hiring and annual-review rules require
For drivers and operations covered by 49 C.F.R. section 391.23, the carrier must inquire into the preceding three years of driving records and investigate safety performance with previous DOT-regulated employers. The regulation provides 30-day requirements for obtaining and filing specified information after employment begins. It also addresses documenting good-faith efforts when information cannot be obtained. A missing reply is therefore different from a failure to make the inquiry.
The rule also gives drivers rights to review, correct, and rebut prior-employer information. Read those materials together. An accusation repeated in a file should not be presented as an established event without checking its disposition.
Hiring is only the beginning. Under section 391.25, covered carriers must obtain and review driving records at least once every 12 months. The review addresses safe-driving qualifications and disqualification, considers the accident record and applicable violations, and gives particular weight to conduct such as speeding, reckless driving, and impaired driving. The qualification file must contain the record and a note identifying the reviewer and review date.
These regulations contain scope limits and exceptions. The applicable rule must be matched to the driver, operation, and date. The owner-operator and carrier relationship can also require examination; a label in a contract does not resolve every safety responsibility.
Testing records require a separate, careful analysis
Section 382.301 generally requires a verified negative controlled-substances test before a covered driver first performs safety-sensitive work for an employer. It includes an exception based on qualifying participation in another testing program, with verification and documentation requirements. Pre-employment alcohol testing is treated differently: the section permits it but does not generally require it.
Accordingly, the absence of a new test in the hiring packet is a reason to request the underlying records, not an automatic conclusion that the employer violated the rule. Even an established testing violation does not by itself prove that impairment caused a particular crash.
The qualification file is a starting point, not the whole history
Section 391.51 identifies qualification-file materials, including the application, driving records, road-test or accepted equivalent documentation, annual review note, and applicable medical-qualification records. Its general retention period extends through employment and three years afterward, while certain listed records may be removed three years after execution.
Other relevant material may be outside that file: dispatch messages, training attendance and course content, incident investigations, driver complaints, or communications with a safety manager. A certificate showing that a driver attended a course does not necessarily establish what was taught. A file marked complete does not answer whether a supervisor ignored a later warning.
A preservation request should identify the driver, crash, employment period, disputed safety issue, and relevant systems. Requests for original electronic communications can help establish when a warning arrived and who received it. Personnel and testing records can involve privacy restrictions and protective orders; an injured person does not automatically have unrestricted access to them.
If a document is absent, establish what should exist, who controls it, and whether another source has a copy. Missing records do not automatically prove deliberate destruction. Counsel can assess formal discovery, witness testimony, and any need for court assistance.
Investigating the company does not extend the filing deadline
Civil Code article 3493.1 generally allows two years from injury or damage for ordinary negligence claims. The July 1, 2024 change applies prospectively; older claims generally remain subject to the former one-year rule. Government defendants, minors’ claims, and other special circumstances need separate deadline analysis. Waiting for a safety file does not itself extend prescription.
Fault allocation also depends on the applicable law. The amendment to article 2323, effective January 1, 2026, bars recovery when the injured person’s negligence is 51 percent or more and proportionately reduces damages below that threshold. The article separately addresses harm involving an intentional tortfeasor. Evidence of the carrier’s conduct should be evaluated alongside the driver’s conduct and the facts of the collision.
A truck accident lawyer can assess whether the available facts justify investigating hiring or retention. The crash report, truck identifiers, and any specific information about an earlier safety problem are useful starting points. You do not need the company’s internal personnel file before seeking advice.
Sources checked: September 29, 2026. Last reviewed: September 28, 2026.