Hours of service regulations and Georgia truck accident liability

Hours of service rules can create liability in a Georgia truck case when a driver or carrier broke a limit and the resulting fatigue helped cause the crash. A log violation alone will not carry the claim. Section 395.3 sets the limits for property-carrying drivers and binds both sides, since no carrier may “permit or require” a violation. Georgia’s § 51-1-6 and the proof of causation do the rest.

Limits for property-carrying drivers

Limit	Rule	What to compare
Start of shift	10 consecutive hours off duty first	The rest before this shift
14-hour period	No driving after 14 consecutive hours from coming on duty	The time of the crash
11 hours	No more than 11 hours of driving in that period	Driving time before the crash
8-hour break rule	No driving after more than 8 hours of driving time without a 30-minute interruption	Time since the last break
60 or 70 hours	No driving after 60 hours on duty in 7 days, or 70 in 8, depending on the carrier	The prior week

A period of 7 or 8 consecutive days can end with at least 34 consecutive hours off duty, under § 395.3(c). Passenger carriers have separate limits in § 395.5, so check the type of operation first.

To test the weekly limit, a plaintiff needs at least the 8 days before the crash. A longer request helps with any claim of a pattern.

Exceptions the defense may raise

Section 395.1 has several, and each has conditions.

Exception	What it allows	Conditions to test
Adverse driving conditions	Up to two additional hours	Conditions not known, or not reasonably knowable, under § 395.2
Short haul	Exemption from §§ 395.8 and 395.11	Within a 150 air-mile radius, return to the work reporting location, and the other listed items
Sleeper berth split	Two rest periods can make up the required time	One at least 7 hours in the berth, neither shorter than 2, and a total of at least 10

An exception can change the math and leave fatigue as a fact. A driver within the exception can still be too tired to drive safely, which brings up the next rule.

The fatigue rule stands alone

Under § 392.3, no driver shall operate, and a carrier shall not require or permit a driver to operate, while the driver’s alertness or ability is so impaired by fatigue, illness, or another cause that it is unsafe. So a driver within every hours limit may still violate this rule. The reverse also holds, because an hours violation does not itself prove impairment at the moment of the crash. Truck driver fatigue covers how that is proved.

Connecting a violation to the crash

A violated regulation can support negligence per se under § 51-1-6, but that “supplies only the duty and breach of duty elements”, as Central Anesthesia v. Worthy, 254 Ga. 728 (1985), says.

Parker v. R & L Carriers, 253 Ga. App. 628 (2002), shows the failure mode. The plaintiff relied on § 392.3 and fatigue, and the court affirmed because “the alleged violation of the regulation was not the proximate cause of the accident”.

These facts make the link stronger:

• The violation was close in time to the crash.
• The crash looks like fatigue, such as no braking or a drift across lanes.
• An expert can tie the sleep history to the time of day and the event.
• Other explanations, such as a mechanical failure or another driver’s sudden move, have been addressed.

For example, imagine a driver over the 14-hour limit who is struck by a car running a red light. The violation is real, and it did not cause that collision.

The carrier’s share

Theory	Basis	Proof
Permitted or required the violation	§ 395.3(a), § 392.3	Dispatch assignments, delivery times, messages
Vicarious liability	Employment and scope	Employment records
Negligent supervision	Knowledge of earlier violations	Audits, alerts, discipline records
Schedule requiring speed	§ 392.6	Trip distance and appointment times

Direct claims can proceed even when employment is admitted, under Quynn v. Hulsey, 310 Ga. 473 (2020). Each defendant then owes its own share under § 51-12-33.

Records and their clock

Under § 395.8(k)(1), a carrier keeps records of duty status and supporting documents for at least six months from the date of receipt. The period runs from receipt, and a crash does not stop it. So a letter needs to go out early, naming the records and the dates. Once a duty to preserve exists, routine deletion is no answer, as evidence preservation explains.

Section 395.11 requires drivers to submit supporting documents and carriers to keep them. Bills of lading, dispatch records, expense receipts, and payroll can be compared with the log. A fuel receipt in another city while the log shows off duty is a question to put to the driver. An ELD also records edits and annotations, covered in ELD evidence.

A carrier’s ELD provider may hold its own copy. Send that provider a separate letter once it is identified.

Requests in order

1. Records of duty status for at least 8 days before the crash, and for a longer period if a pattern is alleged.
2. Supporting documents for the same dates.
3. Dispatch messages and delivery appointments.
4. Payroll and mileage records.
5. Carrier log audits and any discipline for violations.
6. Sleep and medical information, where relevant and allowed.

An injury suit has two years under § 9-3-33, and a dispute over the logs doesn’t extend that time.

Sources

• 49 C.F.R. § 392.3
• 49 C.F.R. § 395.1
• 49 C.F.R. § 395.2
• 49 C.F.R. § 395.3
• 49 C.F.R. § 395.8
• 49 C.F.R. § 395.11
• Central Anesthesia v. Worthy, 254 Ga. 728
• Parker v. R & L Carriers, 253 Ga. App. 628
• Quynn v. Hulsey, 310 Ga. 473
• Official Code of Georgia Annotated, November 2022 public release: §§ 9-3-33, 51-1-6, 51-12-33

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.