Is 5 seconds worth 5 million? Carrier ELD Internal Monitoring Liabilities

Recent US litigation against JB Hunt raises questions about the threshold for effective carrier driver oversight. As part of the lawsuit against the carrier and driver it is alleged the carrier did not effectively monitor the driver or correct the driver’s behaviour and this lack of oversight contributed to the collision. This case underscores the complexities of internal monitoring regulations for commercial carriers, especially in the absence of clear regulatory guidance.

Regulatory Requirements for Carrier Hours of Service Monitoring

The Federal Hours of Service Regulations (SOR/2005-313) impose several key obligations on carriers:

  • Monitoring Compliance: Carriers must actively monitor their drivers’ adherence to regulations Section 87(1).
  • Remedial Action: If non-compliance is identified, immediate corrective measures must be taken and documented 87(2).
  • Supporting Documentation: Drivers are required to submit supporting documents to the carrier within 20 days 85(1).
  • Record Accuracy: Carriers must review records and have drivers accept or reject any changes to ensure accuracy 78.3(1) and 78.3(2).
  • Record Retention: The RODS and supporting documents must be filed within 30 days 85(3)(a).

However, these regulations do not define what constitutes adequate monitoring or what corrective actions are necessary for different violation thresholds, leaving significant room for interpretation.

The JB Hunt Case: A Breakdown of the Allegations

In this case, a JB Hunt driver was involved in a fatal collision in the US while allegedly using his phone on a dating app. This was confirmed with driver facing camera data and phone records. Prior to the collision, two incidents within 6 weeks raised concerns about the driver’s behavior:

  1. Incident One: The driver was caught eating while steering with knees and elbows. The carrier documented and addressed the issue with the driver.
  2. Incident Two: Three weeks later, driver-facing camera flagged a five-second distraction event. There is no information if the carrier discussing or acted on this incident with the driver.

The issue in the lawsuit is whether the carrier’s failure to address the previous incidents contributed to the driver’s negligence. This raises a larger question: should a single five-second violation trigger disciplinary action by a carrier?

Industry Standards vs. Regulatory Ambiguity

Carriers receive frequent alerts from electronic logging devices (ELDs) and AI-driven cameras for minor infractions 24 hours a day. Without explicit regulatory guidance, it remains unclear how many brief incremental time violations should warrant carrier intervention. Regulators like Transport Canada, the CCMTA, and Alberta Transportation Compliance and Oversight have yet to provide an ELD interpretation guide despite the regulation being in effect for four years.

Key considerations include:

  • Pattern of Behavior: If a driver exhibits consistent risky behavior, oversight expectations may be higher.
  • New vs. Experienced Drivers: The threshold for intervention might vary based on a driver’s history and experience.
  • Severity of Infractions: Should all infractions, regardless of duration, contribute to carrier liability?

Regulatory Harmonization and Compliance Uncertainty

The lack of clear internal monitoring standards complicates enforcement. The Regulations Amending the Contraventions Regulations (SOR/2023-137) propose a $2,000 penalty per driver for a carrier’s failure to monitor. Yet, without concrete guidance, how can regulators fairly assess compliance?

As Transport Canada and the CCMTA work toward inter-provincial regulation harmonization, cases like JB Hunt’s illustrate the pressing need for explicit internal monitoring directives. Incremental time violations are a fact of life in data rich environments like ELDs and driver facing cameras. Clear regulatory guidance is urgently needed and would benefit carriers by ensuring fair enforcement and reducing liability uncertainties.

Conclusion While the JB Hunt case highlights the potential consequences of inadequate monitoring, it also exposes gaps in regulatory clarity. Carriers need definitive guidance on what constitutes effective driver hour of service oversight to ensure compliance and roadway safety. Until such guidance is provided, industry stakeholders remain in a precarious position—balancing operational feasibility with legal risk in an evolving regulatory landscape.

crossmenu