Bordas & Bordas
Call 304-242-8410 Directions
Blog / Legal News and Product Recalls

Negligent Maintenance Issues in Trucking Cases

· 7 min read
Speeding Semi Truck
Although many of the commercial truck crash cases we handle are caused by some combination of speed, fatigue or distraction, some also involve mechanical failure. These mechanical failures may be discovered by a motor carrier enforcement inspection after a crash, in an expert inspection our office arranges if we are hired quickly enough, or it may be disclosed later in expert examination of photos of property damage. When mechanical problems are found after a crash, most often the root cause is in the company’s systemic failure to follow the well-established rules in maintenance management. Perhaps just as important, evidence of poor maintenance over a long period of time helps jurors believe that the company neglected everything else about safety. Federal regulations require trucking companies and key personnel involved with vehicle inspection and maintenance to understand and comply with rules on vehicle safety. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations at 49 C.F.R. § 396.1 mandates that “every motor carrier, its officers, drivers, agents, representatives, and employees directly concerned with the inspection or maintenance of motor vehicles shall comply and be conversant with the rules of this part.” Too often when we dig out the truth behind a catastrophic truck crash, we learn that truck maintenance personnel were not trained and did not adequately understand what is required. Regarding brake system, for example, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations at 49 C.F.R. § 396.25 outlines specific requirements for anyone who performs maintenance, inspection or repairs on air brake systems: (a) The motor carrier shall ensure that all inspections, maintenance, repairs or service to the brakes of its commercial motor vehicles, are performed in compliance with the requirements of this section. (b) For purposes of this section, “brake inspector” means any employee of a motor carrier who is responsible for ensuring all brake inspections, maintenance, service, or repairs to any commercial motor vehicle, subject to the motor carrier’s control, meet the applicable Federal standards. (c) No motor carrier shall require or permit any employee who does not meet the minimum brake inspector qualifications of §396.25(d) to be responsible for the inspection, maintenance, service or repairs of any brakes on its commercial motor vehicles. (d) The motor carrier shall ensure that each brake inspector is qualified as follows: (d)(1) Understands the brake service or inspection task to be accomplished and can perform that task; and (d)(2) Is knowledgeable of and has mastered the methods, procedures, tools and equipment used when performing an assigned brake service or inspection task; and (d)(3) Is capable of performing the assigned brake service or inspection by reason of experience, training or both as follows: (d)(3)(i) Has successfully completed an apprenticeship program sponsored by a State, a Canadian Province, a Federal agency or a labor union, or a training program approved by a State, Provincial or Federal agency, or has a certificate from a State or Canadian Province which qualifies the person to perform the assigned brake service or inspection task (including passage of Commercial Driver’s License air brake tests in the case of a brake inspection); or (d)(3)(ii) Has brake related training or experience or a combination thereof totaling at least one year. Such training or experience may consist of: (d)(3)(ii)(A) Participation in a training program sponsored by a brake or vehicle manufacturer or similar commercial training program designed to train students in brake maintenance or inspection similar to the assigned brake service or inspection tasks; or (d)(3)(ii)(B) Experience performing brake maintenance or inspection similar to the assigned brake service or inspection task in a motor carrier maintenance program; or (d)(3)(ii)(C) Experience performing brake maintenance or inspection similar to the assigned brake service or inspection task at a commercial garage, fleet leasing company, or similar facility. (e) No motor carrier shall employ any person as a brake inspector unless the evidence of the inspector’s qualifications, required under this section is maintained by the motor carrier at its principal place of business, or at the location at which the brake inspector is employed. The evidence must be maintained for the period during which the brake inspector is employed in that capacity and for one year thereafter. However, motor carriers do not have to maintain evidence of qualifications to inspect air brake systems for such inspections performed by persons who have passed the air brake knowledge and skills test for a Commercial Driver’s License. When a truck crash is caused, in whole or in part, by brake failure, we usually find that the person responsible for maintenance at the trucking company had no idea what a certified brake was, much less qualifying as one. In these instances when a mechanical failure contributes to the cause of a truck crash, we are likely to find in depositions of the maintenance supervisor and the truck driver that the driver vehicle inspection report was never shown to any driver, either the driver that filled out the report or the next driver. Another section of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, 49 C.F.R. § 396.11, states: “(c) Corrective action. Prior to requiring or permitting a driver to operate a vehicle, every motor carrier or its agent shall repair any defect or deficiency listed on the driver vehicle inspection report which would be likely to affect the safety of operation of the vehicle. Every motor carrier or its agent shall certify on the original driver vehicle inspection report which lists any defect or deficiency that the defect or deficiency has been repaired or that repair is unnecessary before the vehicle is operated again.” When we dig into the records, we are likely to find the company did not comply with this rule either. Requirements for annual truck inspections are outlined in 49 C.F.R. § 396, Appendix G. However, it is not unusual to find that the person in charge of maintenance was unfamiliar with this requirement, and therefore could not credibly sign off on inspection requirements with which he is unfamiliar. That very knowledge on the part of maintenance personnel is required of trucking companies. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations at 49 C.F.R. § 396.19 requires: “(a) It shall be the motor carrier’s responsibility to ensure that the individual(s) performing an annual inspection under §396.17(d) (e) or is qualified as follows: (a)(1) Understands the inspection criteria set forth in 49 CFR Part 393 and Appendix G of this subchapter and can identify defective components; (a)(2) Is knowledgeable of and has mastered the methods, procedures, tools and equipment used when performing an inspection; and (a)(3) Is capable of performing an inspection by reason of experience, training, or both as follows: (a)(3)(i) Successfully completed a State or Federal sponsored training program or has a certificate from a State or Canadian Province which qualifies the person to perform commercial motor vehicle safety inspections, or (a)(3)(ii) Have a combination of training and/or experience totaling at least 1 year. Such training and/or experience may consist of: (a)(3)(ii)(A) Participation in a truck manufacturer sponsored training program or similar commercial training program designed to train students in truck operation and maintenance; (a)(3)(ii)(B) Experience as a mechanic or inspector in a motor carrier maintenance program; (a)(3)(ii)(C) Experience as a mechanic or inspector in truck maintenance at a commercial garage, fleet leasing company, or similar facility; or (a)(3)(ii)(D) Experience as a commercial vehicle inspector for a State, Provincial or Federal Government. (b) Evidence of that individual’s qualifications under this section shall be retained by the motor carrier for the period during which that individual is performing annual motor vehicle inspections for the motor carrier, and for one year thereafter. However, motor carriers do not have to maintain documentation of inspector qualifications for those inspections performed either as part of a State periodic inspection program or at the roadside as part of a random roadside inspection program.” The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations at 49 C.F.R. § 396.25 requires that the brake inspector must be “knowledgeable of and has mastered the methods, procedures, tools and equipment used when performing an assigned brake service or inspection task.” But when brakes fail, we are likely to find that the maintenance personnel lacked the knowledge of how to deal with a simple brake out of adjustment with an automatic slack adjuster, which disqualifies them as brake inspectors. When there is a truck crash in which mechanical problems are an issue, when we review personnel files of trucking company mechanics, we are likely to find that they, too, are deficient in training, experience or certification. While we seldom see a truck crash case in which mechanical failure is the sole cause, if hired early enough we are able to get a thorough inspection to find what mechanical issues are involved. In representing the victims of a catastrophic truck crash in which mechanical issues are involves, we work closely with experts who inspect the truck and guide us through the technical details required to build the case. Picture courtesy of Pixabay.    
Posted in:

Related Posts

Hospital sign pointing to the Emergency Room and Main Entrance outside a medical building
Feb 10, 2026 in Legal News and Product Recalls

$3.77 Million in Medical Malpractice Case Against Wheeling Doctor and PA

WHEELING, WV / PITTSBURGH, PA — An Ohio County, West Virginia jury has returned a $3.77 Million verdict in a medical malpractice case against a doctor and a physician’s assistant at WVU Medicine Wheeling Hospital. Following a four-day trial, the jury found both Dr. Barry Mitchell and Physician’s Assistant Michelle Porembka negligent in their medical care of 64 year old Julie Daley when she presented with abdominal complaints at the Wheeling Hospital emergency room in June 2022. As a result of the medical care providers’ failure to timely and properly treat her condition, Daley ultimately sustained a perforated colon along with necrosis which ultimately lead to her needing to have a permanent colostomy. The jury found that the conduct of both Mitchell and Poermbka fell below the standard of care for medical care providers in their field and that their negligence proximately caused injuries and damages to Mrs. Daley.  Daley was represented at trial by Geoff Brown and Tyler Smith of the Wheeling law firm of Bordas & Bordas. Following the verdict, Smith commented, “We are pleased that the jury recognized that this should not have happened to Julie Daley and that they compensated her for the life-long effects that she will have as a result of the negligence of the medical providers.” Mark Robinson and David Givens of Flaherty, Sensabaugh, and Bonasso represented the medical providers at trial.  Circuit Court Judge Jason Cuomo presided over the case. Brown stated “Our practice is based upon fighting for justice for people who have been injured or wronged by others.  Helping others is at the root of everything that we do and we are glad that we were able to help Julie and her family obtain a measure of justice through this case and this result.” About Bordas & Bordas Founded in 1985, Bordas & Bordas Attorneys PLLC has earned a reputation as one of the region’s premier personal injury and plaintiff litigation law firms. With offices in Wheeling and Moundsville, West Virginia; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; and St. Clairsville, Ohio, the firm represents clients in cases involving automobile and trucking accidents, medical malpractice, workplace injuries, nursing home negligence, product liability, wrongful death, insurance bad faith, and more. The firm operates on a contingency fee basis (clients pay only if there is a recovery) and offers free initial consultations. Rooted in its core values of experience, family, community, and results, Bordas & Bordas continues to stand as a trusted advocate for individuals and families across the Ohio Valley and beyond. Visit www.bordaslaw.com for more information.

The Pennsylvania Superior Court Analyzes the Federal Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act in Denying Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
Oct 09, 2025 in Legal News and Product Recalls

The Pennsylvania Superior Court Analyzes the Federal Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act in Denying Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

The Pennsylvania Superior Court Analyzes the Federal Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act in Denying Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings In Boyle v. Meyer, 2025 PA Super 198 (September 9, 2025), the Pennsylvania Superior Court denied a physical therapy company’s motion for judgment on the pleadings based on the immunity provisions contained in the federal Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act). Background of the Case Plaintiff Boyle required physical therapy following open-heart surgery. To minimize the risk of contracting COVID-19, he arranged for OSPTA Home Care to provide in-home services. On November 8, 2020, physical therapist Meyer arrived without gloves, a face shield, or a proper mask — only wearing a thin, disposable surgical mask. Meyer also shook Boyle’s hand without gloves, did not wash her hands before treatment, and performed therapy as usual. Days later, OSPTA informed Boyle that Meyer had tested positive for COVID-19. Boyle soon developed symptoms, was hospitalized for ten days, and continued to suffer complications five months later. Boyle sued OSPTA and Meyer, alleging: Meyer was negligent in failing to wear proper personal protective equipment (PPE). Meyer exposed him to unreasonable risk and performed therapy despite known exposure. OSPTA failed to properly train and supervise Meyer and implement safeguards to prevent the virus’s spread. Defendants’ Motion and PREP Act Defense In response, Defendants admitted Meyer was not wearing gloves or a face shield but stated she wore a surgical mask and used hand sanitizer earlier in the day. They argued they were immune from liability under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 247d-6d, 247d-6e. Defendants asserted that they met all four requirements for immunity: Public health emergency – The COVID-19 pandemic triggered PREP Act protections. Covered persons – They qualified as both “program planners” and “qualified persons” under the Act. Covered countermeasure – Meyer’s “thin, disposable surgical mask” was a device authorized for emergency use by the FDA. Causal relationship – Meyer’s use of the mask had a causal connection to Boyle’s COVID-19 claim. The trial court denied their motion for judgment on the pleadings. Superior Court’s Analysis On appeal, the Superior Court found several factual disputes that prevented judgment for the Defendants. Specifically: It was unclear whether Meyer’s surgical mask qualified as a “covered countermeasure.” The pleadings did not conclusively establish that the Defendants were “covered persons.” Even if both were true, PREP Act immunity applies only to the use or administration of a covered countermeasure — not to its non-use. Citing Hampton v. California, 83 F.4th 754 (9th Cir. 2023), the Court noted that the PREP Act shields defendants from claims related to administering a covered measure, but not from claims alleging failure to administer one. Because Boyle’s complaint focused on the failure to use proper PPE, inadequate screening, and lack of training, his claims fell outside the scope of federal immunity. Conclusion The Superior Court concluded that the PREP Act did not preempt Boyle’s state-law negligence claims, affirming the trial court’s denial of the motion for judgment on the pleadings. The full opinion in Boyle v. Meyer, 2025 PA Super 198 (September 9, 2025), is available on the Pennsylvania Judiciary website. To learn more about legal issues surrounding immunity and negligence in Pennsylvania courts, visit our post on how the PA Superior Court reviews evidentiary challenges in medical cases.

Lead Risk Prompts Nationwide Recall of Ground Cinnamon
Oct 02, 2025 in Legal News and Product Recalls

Lead Risk Prompts Nationwide Recall of Ground Cinnamon

Lead Risk Prompts Nationwide Recall of Ground Cinnamon The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued a nationwide recall of 12 ground cinnamon brands after testing revealed elevated levels of lead. Roughly 21,690 units were sold through retailers like Dollar Tree and Save-A-Lot before being pulled from shelves. Consumers are urged to immediately throw away any affected products and avoid purchasing them until further notice. See the official FDA recall notice. Why This Recall Matters Although no injuries have been reported yet, the FDA warns that prolonged consumption of contaminated cinnamon can cause lead accumulation in the body. Children are especially at risk, since lead exposure can impact neurological development. Cinnamon is often used in foods like cereals, baked goods, and snack mixes — staples in many households with kids. This makes the recall a major public health concern for families nationwide, including those in West Virginia, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. FDA’s Broader Effort This recall is part of a larger FDA initiative to monitor imported spices more closely. Several cinnamon brands have been flagged in prior alerts, and surveillance is ongoing. For example: The FDA recently added Asli brand ground cinnamon to the list of affected products after new testing revealed unsafe lead levels. Additional products may be named as investigations continue. See the expanded FDA alert. What You Should Do If you purchased ground cinnamon recently: Check your spice cabinet against the recall list. Dispose of any recalled products immediately. Do not repurchase affected brands until the FDA clears them. If you suspect your child or another family member has been exposed, consult a healthcare provider for guidance. For ongoing updates, visit the FDA’s cinnamon recall page. Protecting Consumers This recall is a reminder that product safety issues extend beyond toys, appliances, and vehicles — even everyday food staples can carry risks. Families in WV, OH, and PA should stay informed about recalls and understand their rights if a defective or dangerous product causes harm. At Bordas & Bordas, our attorneys help consumers hold corporations accountable when safety takes a backseat to profit.

Contact Us

Fill out this form below and we'll contact you shortly
*Required Fields

Request Consultation

Call 304-242-8410 or fill out the form below.

Request Free Consultation