maintain accurate records of duty status. Have you ever identified a driver who was falsifying logs? What did you do?”
•“ Has your company ever been cited by the FMCSA for HOS violations during a compliance review or roadside inspection? What corrective action was taken?”
Pay close attention to ELD edit logs. Under 49 CFR 395.30, drivers and carriers can edit ELD records, but every edit must be annotated with an explanation. Unexplained edits, especially those that reduce driving time or on-duty time, are red flags for log falsification— and the safety director is the person who should be catching them.
D. Vehicle Maintenance
A truck with faulty brakes, bald tires, or defective lighting is a ticking bomb on the highway. Under 49 CFR Part 396, the carrier must systematically inspect, repair, and maintain every vehicle under its control.
•“ Describe your preventive maintenance program. What inspections are performed and at what intervals?”
•“ Under 49 CFR 396.11 and 396.13, your drivers are required to complete DVIRs— pre-trip and post-trip inspection reports. Walk me through how that process works at your company.”
•“ When a driver reports a defect on a DVIR, what happens next? Who reviews it? How quickly is the repair made?”
•“ Has a driver ever reported a defect that was not repaired before the vehicle was dispatched again?”*
•“ Show me every DVIR for the subject vehicle for the six months prior to this crash.”
•“ Show me the annual inspection record for this vehicle under 49 CFR 396.17. Who performed the inspection? Were they a qualified inspector under 396.19?”
•“ Were there any out-of-service violations for this vehicle during roadside inspections in the two years prior to the crash?”
The maintenance line of questioning is particularly effective because it generates physical evidence. Brake measurements, tire tread depths, and inspection records are objective data that the safety director cannot explain away with platitudes about company culture.
E. Post-Accident Response
The company’ s conduct after the crash tells the jury as much as its conduct before. Under 49 CFR 382.303, the carrier must conduct post-accident drug and alcohol testing under specific circumstances: when there is a fatality, when a driver receives a citation and someone is transported for immediate medical treatment, or when a vehicle sustains disabling damage.
•“ What is your company’ s post-accident investigation procedure? Is it written? Produce it.”
•“ Walk me through what happened in the hours after this crash. Who was notified? What steps were taken?”*
•“ Was post-accident drug testing performed? If so, when was the specimen collected relative to the time of the crash?”
•“ 49 CFR 382.303 requires alcohol testing as soon as practicable but no later than eight hours after the accident, and drug testing no later than 32 hours. Were those deadlines met?”
•“ If testing was not completed within two hours, did you prepare a record explaining the reasons for the delay, as required by the regulation?”
•“ What changes, if any, did your company make to its policies, procedures, training, or supervision as a result of this crash?”
That last question is a trap that works regardless of the answer. If the company changed nothing, the jury hears indifference. If the company made changes, the jury infers that the prior system was deficient— and the company knew it.
Connecting the Testimony to Negligence and Punitive Damages
Individual regulatory violations are building blocks. The safety director deposition is where you assemble them into a structure that supports both compensatory and punitive damages. The formula is straightforward: regulation plus knowledge plus inaction equals institutional negligence. The FMCSR imposed a duty. The safety director knew— or would have known if they had done their job— that the duty was not being met. And the company did nothing, or did not do enough, to fix the problem. For punitive damages, the standard in most jurisdictions requires a showing of willful, wanton, or reckless disregard for the rights or safety of others. The safety director deposition provides this through testimony about:
• Repeated violations of the same regulation without corrective action.
• Complaints or warnings about the specific driver that were ignored.
• Elevated SMS / BASIC scores that the company failed to address.
• A pattern of prioritizing revenue and on-time delivery over safety compliance.
Frame your questions so that the safety director’ s own testimony tells this story. Every admission—“ We didn’ t have a formal process for that,”“ I’ m not sure who was reviewing those records,”“ I don’ t recall any corrective action being taken”*— is a brick in your wall.
The Trial Lawyer 19