When a truck driver needs interpreters for deposition, the company has a big problem
49 CFR § 391.11(b)(2) requires all truckers be proficient in English (h2)
Here’s a common mistake many who litigate truck accidents make: They fail to understand that truck drivers must be proficient in English, and if they’re not, they have a negligent supervision and negligent entrustment case against the company.
Remember, trucks are different. Every once in a while, a defendant requires an interpreter during a deposition. This makes sense. If a witness is going to be examined under oath (and penalty of perjury) that person should have the benefit of fully understanding each and every single they’re asked.
But this doesn’t make sense when we’re talking about a truck accident, and the person requesting the interpreter is the defendant truck driver.
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) contain a provision requiring all truck drivers to be proficient in English. That rule can be found in § 391.11(b)(2), requiring that all truckers “[c]an read and speak the English language sufficiently to converse with the general public, to understand highway traffic signs and signals in the English language, to respond to official inquiries, and to make entries on reports and records.”
Think about it — if a truck driver has to be proficient in English such that he can “respond to official inquiries,” how in the world can that same trucker be in compliance with § 391.11?
And remember, it’s not just a truck driver who can land himself in hot water by asking for an interpreter during a deposition. Ultimately, it’s the trucking company’s responsibility to make sure they’re putting safe, compliant drivers on the highway.
So, next time you’re litigating a serious truck accident case and the defendant trucker claims he needs an interpreter or there was some kind of a language barrier at the scene, don’t forget to point out § 391.11(b)(2).
Related information:
5 ways to depose a truck company safety expert
