Underride truck accidents in Georgia

An underride crash happens when a smaller vehicle slides beneath a truck or trailer, so the crash forces bypass the car’s front structure. The trailer’s build date is the first legal question. NHTSA’s upgraded federal standards for rear guards took effect January 11, 2023, but compliance was not required until July 15, 2024. So a trailer built between those dates could lawfully have an older guard. The standards address rear guards only, and a claim may run against the driver, the carrier, or a manufacturer.

The federal rules and their dates

Event	Date	Source
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law signed; Section 23011 addresses underride	November 15, 2021	87 FR 42339
Upgrade published	July 15, 2022	87 FR 42339
Effective date	January 11, 2023	87 FR 42339
Compliance date, with early compliance optional	July 15, 2024	87 FR 42339
Petition to reconsider denied	June 27, 2024	89 FR 53505
Further petition for rulemaking denied	July 15, 2024	89 FR 57381

The law dates from 2021 and the rule from 2022. The final rule adopted requirements similar to Transport Canada’s standard. It requires guards to protect occupants of compact and subcompact cars striking the rear at 56 km/h (35 mph), both at the center and with 50 percent overlap.

Federal Standard 223 now calls for a uniform distributed force of at least 350,000 N across the horizontal member, with energy absorption requirements. Federal Standard 224 applies to trailers and semitrailers with the weight rating it states, and it excepts pole trailers, pulpwood trailers, and other listed types. So check whether this trailer is covered at all.

The 30 percent overlap gap

The rule did not require protection in a crash where only 30 percent of a car’s width overlaps the trailer. NHTSA explained that it determined such a standard would not meet the Safety Act’s requirements. IIHS’s TOUGHGUARD award, described in the rule as recognizing guards that mitigate intrusion in all three overlap conditions, shows what some trailers achieved.

Pointing to the Canadian standard as a higher benchmark adds little, because the federal rule itself adopted similar requirements. The stronger comparison for a design claim is to guards earning TOUGHGUARD, as long as the evidence shows they were feasible when the trailer was built.

Side and front underride

FMVSS 223 and 224 are about rear guards. They do not require a side guard. A plaintiff with a side crash cannot rest on those standards, and would have to rely on ordinary negligence or a design claim, with its own proof. Anyone relying on a side guard rule should confirm the federal rules in force on the trailer’s build date.

Who may be responsible

Defendant	Theory	Key evidence
Driver	Stopped or slowed unsafely, lights, warning devices	Event data, witness accounts, § 392.22 on warning devices
Carrier	Maintenance of guard and lights; vicarious	Inspection and repair records, § 396.3
Trailer maker	Defective design or manufacture	Design and test records, certification label
Guard maker	Component defect	Supplier records
Road or other drivers	Depends on the facts	Reconstruction

Reflective tape and lighting matter, since a person who could not see the trailer has a stronger claim. Section 393.11 sets the conspicuity requirements. A damaged or corroded guard, or a guard mounted incorrectly, is a different question from a design problem.

Compliance and the product claim

Meeting a federal standard is not the end of a Georgia design claim. Georgia uses a risk-utility analysis, as the design defect page explains. Whether compliance counts as evidence, and how much, is a question for that claim, along with federal preemption arguments and the statute of repose in § 51-1-11. Because trailers can stay in service for a long time, the 10-year repose can be decisive, so the date of the first sale matters.

The plaintiff’s own conduct

The defense will look at speed, attention, and lookout. For example, imagine a car closing on a trailer slowed in a lane at night. Fault is divided under § 51-12-33, and 50 percent or more ends recovery. The trailer’s lights and any warning triangles can be the other side of that question. Seat belt evidence may also come in for an action commenced on or after April 21, 2025, under § 40-8-76.1.

Proof from the guard and the trailer

Underride evidence is physical and easily lost.

• The guard, its brackets, and fasteners. Ask that they be preserved before the trailer is repaired or scrapped.
• The certification label, VIN, and build date.
• Trailer purchase and spec records, including any TOUGHGUARD-rated option offered.
• Crush measurements on the car, and photographs before removal.
• Lighting filament or LED evidence, and tape condition.
• Event data from the truck and the car.
• Maintenance records. See maintenance records.

The officer’s report may not address guard performance. A reconstruction engineer and a structural engineer can, under § 24-7-702. An officer’s opinion can be challenged on the same standard, under Miller v. Golden Peanut, S22G0905 (2023).

First steps for a family

1. Get the crash report, and photographs of the trailer’s rear.
2. Identify the trailer owner, which may be different from the tractor’s.
3. Send a preservation letter for the trailer and guard.
4. Find out the trailer’s build date.
5. Calendar the two-year date under § 9-3-33.

Wrongful death from defective products covers the death claim when a manufacturer is involved.

Sources

• NHTSA final rule, 87 FR 42339 (July 15, 2022)
• NHTSA denial of reconsideration, 89 FR 53505 (June 27, 2024)
• NHTSA denial of petition, 89 FR 57381 (July 15, 2024)
• 49 C.F.R. § 571.223
• 49 C.F.R. § 571.224
• Official Code of Georgia Annotated, November 2022 public release: §§ 9-3-33, 24-7-702, 40-8-76.1, 51-1-11, 51-12-33
• 49 C.F.R. § 392.22
• Miller v. Golden Peanut, S22G0905

This page was last reviewed in November 2026 for general information. Laws and court decisions can change after that date. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship.