Transportation Company Policies & Procedures For Retention Of Electronic Control Module Data

On September 11, 2017, the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Alabama issued an opinion in Barry v. Big M Transp., Inc., Case No. 16-CV-00167, that addresses when, and what type of, sanctions are warranted when a transportation company fails to preserve event data recorder information. Transportation companies should use this decision as an opportunity to reflect on the policies and procedures they have in place for data retention and to guide their retention procedures going forward.

Facts

The case arose out of a motor vehicle accident that occurred on Interstate 20 in Alabama. While driving through a construction zone, the car of one plaintiff was first involved in a side-to-side collision resulting in damage to the driver's side of the vehicle. The plaintiff brought his vehicle to a complete stop in the right lane. Two other vehicles that were traveling behind the plaintiff also stopped.

Shortly after the three vehicles stopped in the right lane, the defendant's tractor trailer (truck) sideswiped the plaintiffs' cars. While the cause of this second accident is in dispute, the official accident report completed by the Alabama state police identified the plaintiffs' "improper parking/ stopped in the road" as the primary circumstances contributing to the accident. The defendant's truck was towed from the scene of the accident to a repair shop, and then driven back to the defendant's headquarters.

Less than a month after the accident, the plaintiffs sent the defendant a letter of preservation requesting the defendant to preserve, among other evidence, the subject truck and the electronic data/ electronic control module (ECM) vehicle data recorder/black box and its data. However, by that date, the truck had already undergone accident-related repairs. In addition, prior to the accident, the truck had been selected for sale, which was completed three days after the defendant received the plaintiffs' letter of preservation.

The defendant did not download or otherwise preserve the data prior to completing the sale of the truck. A representative of the defendant testified that it was normal practice to retrieve data if it is known that a collision is severe. He conceded that there was nothing preventing the defendant from preserving the data, but said it would not have mattered because it was his understanding that any accident-related data would have been gone. He believed that something as simple as moving the truck can start the process...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT