Question: Is there liability for Indiana companies hiring trucks from Mexico that are in disrepair?
Answer: The mere fact that a truck is Mexican-owned or came from Mexico does not, by itself, eliminate responsibility when the vehicle is being operated in interstate commerce in Indiana.
Whether in the State of Indiana or any other state in the United States, there are federal provisions concerning inspections performed in Mexico. Pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 396.17(f), this federal rule recognizes qualifying Mexican inspections, but it also expressly states that the motor carrier remains responsible for ensuring that the parts and accessories of vehicles for which it is responsible are maintained or promptly repaired to the federal minimum standards of the United States. If, for example, an Indiana logistics/carrier company accepts a Mexican-owned tractor or trailer and puts it into interstate service, evidence that the carrier knew or should have discovered that the tires were dangerously defective can be significant in establishing negligence on behalf of the leasing/logistics company. Further 49 C.F.R. § 376.12 states that when an authorized motor carrier leases equipment, the lease generally must provide that the carrier-lessee has exclusive possession, control, and use of the equipment and assumes complete responsibility for its operation during the lease. As a result, the Indiana logistics company is the motor carrier/lessee operating the truck under its authority. Based upon this fact, the company will have substantial responsibility for ensuring that the leased truck is safe—even though someone else owns the tractor.
There are several useful Indiana leasing cases. In the case of Rediehs Express, Inc. v. Maple, 446 N.E.2d 1013 (Ind. Ct. App. 1983/1986), the Indiana Court of Appeals discussed the federal trucking regulations and held that a carrier using leased equipment could be responsible for the lessor’s conduct concerning safety of the equipment. The court emphasized the trucking industry’s heavily regulated nature and the carrier’s responsibility when it puts leased equipment on the highway under its authority. There is also the case of Detrick v. Midwest Pipe & Steel, Inc., 598 N.E.2d 1074, 1077 (Ind. Ct. App. 1992), where the Indiana Courts noted that a principal who controls or has right to control physical conduct of his agent in performance of a service is master, upon whom liability for torts of the agent may be imposed and also quoted the rule that the carrier must exercise care in its leasing arrangements and in assuring the safety of leased equipment.