STEERE TANK LINES, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that while the jury instruction regarding corporate liability for driver falsifications was technically erroneous, it was harmless error given the overall evidence of the corporation's knowledge and wilfulness.
Appellant, a motor common carrier, was convicted of falsifying driver logs in violation of ICC regulations. Drivers falsified logs to earn extra money…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Interstate Commerce Commission Regulations cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
After careful reconsideration of the whole record we adhere to our original ruling that the erroneous charge was harmless. The evidence against appellant went far beyond the fact of the several acts of the drivers which were in violation of the regulation. There being no merit otherwise in the petition for rehearing, it is ordered that the same be, and it is, hereby denied.
. Count 1 of the information will suffice as an example of the nature of each of the counts:
“On or about the 3rd clay of May, 1961, at Dumas, State and Northern District of Texas, Amarillo Division, Steere Tank Lines, Inc., defendant, a corporation, a common carrier by motor vehicle, did knowingly and wilfully fail to require D. R. Kiser, a^ driver in its employ, to make and keep a driver’s daily log in the form and' manner prescribed by the Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (49 CFR 190 to 196), in that the driver’s daily log, received and accepted by said defendant from, said driver as a record of the work performed by said driver for said defendant on said day, contained entries showing that said driver was off duty from 7 :00 p. m. to 11:59 p. m. at Mancos, Colorado, whereas, in truth and in fact, as defendant well knew, said driver was driving a motor vehicle and performing other work for said defendant at 9 :26 p. m. at Fort Garland, Colorado, on said day. (49 CFR 195.8; 49 U.S. Code 322(a).” '
. The regulations require that a driver must have eight hours off duty after having driven ten consecutive hours before he can drive again.
. “The defendant company, as a corporation, is a legal entity, that is an intangible being, and, in the nature of things, can act, know, reason, choose or have discernment only through the medium of persons working as its managers, or agents, or any of the lesser rank of employees, and in practical necessity it is liable for the acts of such persons done within the bounds of their authority and duty as one doing some part of the work of the corporation. Knowledge affecting the corporation, which has been gained by any officer, agent or employees thereof in the course of his work for the company is attributcd to the corporation, and this in-eludes subordinate employees, such as truck drivers. The corporation cannot be shielded from such imputed knowledge on the ground that an employee in doing his regular work for the company cornmitted a violation of some instruction by the company,
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Noble C. Beasley, 576 F.2d 626 (5th Cir. 1978)
-
Holt v. United States, 342 F.2d 163 (5th Cir. 1965)
-
United States v. Ragsdale, 438 F.2d 21 (5th Cir. 1971)
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (14 total)
- Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750 (U.S. 1946)
- United States v. Murdock, 290 U.S. 389 (U.S. 1933)
- Boyce Motor Lines, Inc. v. United States, 342 U.S. 337 (U.S. 1952)
- United States v. Ill. Cent. R.R. Co., 303 U.S. 239 (U.S. 1938)
- N.Y. Cent. & Hudson River R.R. Co. v. United States, 212 U.S. 481 (U.S. 1909)
- ROE v. United States, 316 F.2d 617 (5th Cir. 1963)
- United States v. A & P Trucking Co., 358 U.S. 121 (U.S. 1958)
- Standard OIL Co. OF Tex. & Pasotex Pipe Line Co. v. United States, 307 F.2d 120 (5th Cir. 1962)
- Ahlstedt v. United States, 315 F.2d 62 (5th Cir. 1963)
- Inland Freight Lines v. United States, 191 F.2d 313 (10th Cir. 1951)