Hours of Service Violations in Trucking

A fully loaded 18-wheeler weighs up to 80,000 pounds. At highway speeds, a fatigued driver behind the wheel is a disaster waiting to happen — which is exactly why the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration sets mandatory limits on how long commercial truck drivers can operate before they must rest. These aren't suggestions. They are federal law, codified in the regulations at 49 C.F.R. Part 395, and when trucking companies ignore them to meet delivery deadlines, people die.

Fatigue impairs reaction time, judgment, and attention as severely as alcohol. Research consistently shows that a driver who has been awake for 18 hours performs like someone with a blood alcohol content of 0.05%. After 24 hours without sleep, impairment reaches the equivalent of a 0.10% BAC — well above the legal limit. The Hours of Service rules exist because even well-intentioned drivers cannot safely judge their own fatigue levels, and the economic pressures of the trucking industry create powerful incentives to keep driving past the point of safety.

What the Rules Actually Require

The core HOS rules for property-carrying drivers establish several interlocking limits. The 11-Hour Driving Limit prohibits a driver from operating a commercial motor vehicle for more than 11 hours after 10 consecutive hours off duty. The 14-Hour Duty Window prohibits driving after the 14th consecutive hour after coming on duty, regardless of breaks taken during that window — meaning a driver who comes on duty at 6:00 a.m. cannot drive past 8:00 p.m. even if they took a three-hour nap in the middle of the day. The 30-Minute Break Requirement mandates at least a 30-minute break after 8 cumulative hours of driving. And the 60/70-Hour Limit caps total on-duty time at 60 hours in 7 consecutive days or 70 hours in 8 consecutive days.

These rules interact in ways that matter for crash investigations. A driver can comply with the 11-hour driving limit while violating the 14-hour duty window. A driver can have plenty of hours remaining on the weekly clock while exceeding the daily driving limit. Understanding how these overlapping restrictions work — and how each creates independent evidence of fatigue when violated — is essential for building trucking accident cases.

How Electronic Logging Devices Changed Everything

Before December 2017, many truckers kept paper logbooks that were easily falsified and nearly impossible to verify. The industry called them "comic books" because the entries were often fiction. Drivers routinely maintained two sets of logs — one for inspectors and one reflecting reality.

The ELD Mandate changed this fundamentally. Electronic Logging Devices connect directly to the engine's computer and automatically record engine hours, vehicle movement, miles driven, GPS location data, and driver identification. This data syncs with the vehicle's systems in real time, making it extremely difficult to falsify. When a crash happens, the ELD records provide a precise timeline of the driver's hours before impact — exactly how long they had been driving, when they last rested, and whether they complied with every applicable limit.

ELD data has become the single most important piece of evidence in modern trucking accident litigation. It transforms what used to be a "he said, she said" dispute about driver fatigue into an objective factual record. A driver who claims to have been well-rested but whose ELD shows 13 consecutive hours of driving cannot hide behind self-serving testimony. The machine recorded what actually happened.

Common Violations and How They Happen

The most straightforward violation is exceeding the 11-hour driving limit — the ELD simply shows more than 11 hours of driving time before the crash. But violations often involve more sophisticated evasion. Some drivers use a second phone or switch to "off-duty" or "sleeper berth" status while continuing to drive — a scheme that ELD data, GPS records, and fuel receipts can collectively expose by showing engine activity and location changes during periods the driver claimed to be off duty.

Cutting rest periods short is equally common. Dispatchers pressure drivers to get back on the road before completing the full 10-hour off-duty period, and the ELD timestamps show exactly when the driver logged off and back on. Skipping the mandatory 30-minute break after 8 hours of continuous driving is another frequent violation, driven by delivery schedules that leave no margin for rest. And exceeding the 14-hour duty window — continuing to drive past the window even after taking breaks — happens when carriers pressure drivers to "push through" to make delivery appointments.

Each of these violations creates independent evidence of fatigue and independent grounds for finding that the carrier failed to comply with federal safety regulations — evidence that is powerful in both proving negligence and demonstrating a pattern of disregard for safety that can support punitive damages.

How Violations Prove Negligence

In a truck accident lawsuit, proving the trucking company's negligence often comes down to one question: did they follow the safety rules, or did they cut corners? HOS violations are uniquely powerful evidence because they establish multiple elements of negligence simultaneously. The violation proves the driver was operating while impaired by fatigue, a known and well-documented danger. The carrier's access to real-time ELD data proves it knew or should have known the driver was exceeding limits. The connection between fatigue and crashes — slower reactions, lane drift, failure to brake, falling asleep at the wheel — establishes causation. And a history of violations across the fleet shows a company culture that prioritizes profit over safety.

Pattern evidence is particularly valuable. When discovery reveals that this wasn't the first time this driver exceeded hours limits, or that other drivers in the same fleet routinely violated HOS rules, the case transforms from an isolated incident into evidence of systematic safety failures. That pattern supports both higher compensatory damages and punitive damages for conscious disregard of known dangers.

Carrier Pressure: When the Company Is Really at Fault

Truck drivers often face enormous pressure from dispatchers and fleet managers to meet delivery windows that are mathematically impossible without violating HOS rules. The schedule requires 650 miles of driving in a day when the 11-hour limit allows roughly 600 miles at highway speeds. The pay structure rewards loads delivered on time and penalizes delays. Dispatchers send text messages telling drivers to "figure it out" or "make it happen." And drivers who refuse to break the rules face implicit or explicit threats of lost loads, worse assignments, or termination.

When we investigate truck crashes, we don't stop at the driver's logs. Dispatch logs, text messages between dispatchers and drivers, fleet-wide compliance data, and company compensation policies often reveal that the real cause of the violation — and therefore the real cause of the crash — was carrier-level decision-making that made compliance functionally impossible. Holding the carrier accountable, not just the individual driver, is essential for both fair compensation and deterrence.

Preserving the Evidence

Electronic logging data, GPS records, and dispatch communications can be overwritten, deleted, or "lost" within days of a crash. Trucking companies have legal departments that spring into action immediately after a serious accident, and evidence preservation is not always their priority. This is why we send spoliation letters the moment we are retained — formal legal notices demanding that the carrier preserve all evidence related to the crash, including ELD and GPS data, driver qualification files, maintenance records, dispatch logs and communications, safety and compliance history, and drug and alcohol testing results.

If evidence is destroyed after receiving a spoliation letter, the consequences in court are severe. The court can instruct the jury to presume the destroyed evidence was unfavorable to the carrier, and spoliation alone can dramatically shift the dynamic of the entire case. But preservation demands must go out immediately — waiting even a week can result in critical data being overwritten by routine system processes.

At Addison Law, we handle complex trucking accident cases that demand technical knowledge of federal regulations and aggressive evidence preservation. Our trial attorneys know how to prove Hours of Service violations and hold carriers accountable. If you or a loved one was hurt by a fatigued trucker, contact us immediately.

Frequently Asked Questions

How do I know if HOS violations caused my crash?

You likely cannot know without a professional investigation. ELD data and driver logs are not public records. An attorney can subpoena these records during litigation or demand them in pre-suit discovery, and the data typically reveals exactly how many hours the driver had been operating before the crash.

Can I still have a case if the trucker wasn't cited for HOS violations at the scene?

Absolutely. Police officers responding to crash scenes rarely conduct full HOS audits. They focus on immediate safety, impairment testing, and basic documentation. HOS violations are typically discovered later through legal discovery when attorneys obtain and analyze the ELD data, dispatch records, and driver logs.

What if the trucking company says the driver was an independent contractor?

Carriers frequently attempt to distance themselves from liability by claiming the driver was an independent contractor rather than an employee. However, federal safety regulations apply regardless of the driver's employment classification, and legal theories including vicarious liability, negligent hiring, and negligent entrustment can hold the carrier accountable even for contractor drivers operating under the carrier's authority.

How much compensation can I recover in a trucking accident case?

Trucking cases often involve catastrophic injuries and substantial damages including past and future medical expenses, lost income and earning capacity, pain and suffering, and punitive damages when the carrier's violations were egregious. The amounts vary significantly based on injury severity, but trucking cases generally produce larger recoveries than ordinary auto accident cases because of the severity of injuries and the strength of evidence available through federal regulatory records.

This article is for general information only and is not legal advice.