- 10 -
they wished, provided they removed the placards of any other
company. They could accept or reject loads as they wished. They
could earn as much or as little as wanted because they were free
to use the equipment as much or as little as they wanted.
It is clear from this record that the leases only served the
carriers’ needs to comply with governmental regulations. This
regulatory scheme was put into place to protect the public by
preventing common carriers from evading liability for accidents
caused by the independent drivers. See Zamalloa v. Hart, 31 F.3d
911, 913-914 (9th Cir. 1994); Empire Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v.
Guaranteed Natl. Ins. Co., 868 F.2d 357, 362 (10th Cir. 1989);
see also Prestige Cas. Co. v. Michigan Mut. Ins. Co., 99 F.3d
1340, 1342-1343 (6th Cir. 1996) (I.C.C. regulations that require
every lease entered into by an I.C.C. licensed carrier contain a
clause stating that the authorized carrier maintains “exclusive
possession, control, and use of the equipment for the duration of
the lease” promulgated to curb the abuse of carriers using leased
vehicles to avoid safety regulations and to address public
confusion as to who was financially responsible for the
vehicles); 49 C.F.R. secs. 376.11 and 376.12 (1997).
It is also understandable that the leases served the
practical purpose of ensuring adequate insurance coverage. A
carrier which engages the services of many owner-operators would
have an administrative headache monitoring the adequacy (and
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011