Recommended for you
Rebuilt Safety Measurement System (SMS) & Carrier Peer-Group Score Subpoenas
The FMCSA Safety Measurement System (SMS) is an important regulatory tool to evaluate motor carrier safety performance. SMS analyzes carriers' safety performance in relation to specific categories of violations, crashes, and other safety-related data applicable to those carriers against peer groups. SMS data is used in truck accident litigation because historical safety information can demonstrate whether or not the carrier's safety performance was improving or getting worse right before an accident occurred.
Plaintiff attorneys can dig into when and how much management in the carrier knew that safety performance was deteriorating if a carrier has bad BASIC scores and peer-group percentiles over and over. FMCSA's official data source on carrier safety information and methodology is SMS, the Safety Measurement System (SMS). FMCSA Safety Measurement System (SMS)
An important consideration in using SMS data for accident investigation is to distinguish between present-day scores and past performance. Current scores only reflect the condition of a carrier at a single moment in time, while historical records can establish more systemic performance measures for safety. The issue of whether the carrier had warning indicators in place might be more critical after a disastrous accident if that performance has slowly worsened over months.
The FMCSA uses the Safety Measurement System, or SMS, to track motor carrier safety performance. SMS evaluates different safety categories through Behavior Analysis and Safety Improvement Categories (BASICs).
Depending on the carrier and available data, this may include . This means that you will be impacted differently for each violation. While recent safety events and serious violations can impact a carrier's safety measurement differently. So, in accident litigation, it is insufficient to count just total violations.
Counsel also must ascertain which BASIC the violations fell into, when they occurred, to what degree they were serious, and how much they impacted the carrier's safety record.
FMCSA SMS peer group percentiles position ca carrier'ssafety performance compared to comparable carriers. Percentile should not be seen as a basic raw violation count. In the event that an accident occurs, if a motorist's BASIC percentile had risen significantly in the months preceding that crash, then whatever movement occurred historically can be reviewed by plaintiff counsel.
However, in the context of underlying data, it is very important to understand what this percentile does for your data. The 85th percentile is not simply that the carrier "caused an accident with an 85 percent probability. Percentiles are not directly reporting on likelihood of a crash but rather about relative safety performance. That distinction is critically important to plaintiff counsel that must categorize SMS evidence and related testimony appropriately.
Interval of performance – 24-month summary of SMS execution. This may turn out to be particularly important. SMS calculates inspection violations and crashes with a separate weight over time. In general, though, it weighs recent events much more than older ones. So, a carrier's score is not automatically downgraded simply because of the nature or number of violations. When exactly the violations occurred and how significant they were also counts.
Counsel should not simply get a day-of-the-accident SMS snapshot for the litigation. Lawyers would be better off preserving and reviewing the historical records for the relevant 24-month period before the accident. The FMCSA SMS methodology defines this process of calculation in detail. FMCSA SMS Methodology PDF. Another benefit of conducting a 24-month history review is that counsel can identify recurring patterns.
If the same types of violations appear repeatedly, the investigator should look at what steps the company took to address those issues. For example, if vehicle maintenance-related violations repeatedly appear, maintenance schedules, repair records, inspection reports, and management communications can be compared with SMS history.
A single SMS score provides a snapshot, but a historical trend can potentially be much more useful.
Suppose a hypothetical carrier's percentile
Month 1 — 42nd percentile
Month 6 — 57th percentile
Month 12 — 69th percentile
Month 18 — 82nd percentile
Month 24 — 91st percentile
It moves up.
These numbers are just examples, but such historical movement can raise important questions in investigations:
Was carrier management aware that safety performance was steadily deteriorating?
Also show increasing violations during the same period; then SMS history and internal corporate knowledge can be evaluated together. Counsel should also identify sudden changes while analyzing historical trends. If the percentile increased significantly over a short period, violations and crashes occurring during that period can be specifically investigated. Similarly, if scores improve, counsel should also consider whether the improvement was due to genuine corrective action or older events that occurred outside the 24 months.
A 24-month crash history SMS subpoena shouldn't be for the only purpose of getting a current SMS report. Counsel may review historical safety records as well. These records may assist you in gaining insight into the carrier safety of such individual drivers prior to the accident. Information related to history helps shed light on the background of the case.
Rarely does the public see SMS records of a carrier going back before an accident, but historical SMS can be useful to determine safety performance. Counsel may see how the carrier's safety variables have changed throughout time. This data can pinpoint habitual safety issues or performance patterns. Records relevant to the case can go into evidence.
The SMS data may also bear much relevance for changes in a carrier's peer-group position and safety performance. The historical record might show if a carrier was better or worse off in the end than in the beginning. You are then going to have the opportunity to say, obviously, ahead of an accident, what occurred and understand what a carrier's overall safety image is.
The regularity that certain records will be relevant is dependent upon the facts of the case.
What recent SMS reports may reveal is only the current safety picture of a carrier. If any problem predates the accident, historical information may help establish performance and safety trends of the carrier. Hence, it might be helpful to refer to 24-month historical data in cases where it is warranted. If there is evidence that records exist, counsel may file discovery requests per rules of discovery.
One possible reason could be to show how the carrier's safety history was formed prior to the incident. If discovery is restricted to just the accident date, important pre-accident warnings may be overlooked. Thus, one must be careful in defining what historically means. The facts of an exact case regarding the discovery requests must be prepared according to the main procedural rules.
Carrier's current percentile might actually mean little, but a historical percentile shift could be a better perspective.
If the carrier slipped into the range of high-risk percentiles several months before an accident, and management also was getting internal warnings, plaintiff counsel may be directed to investigate corporate knowledge.
It can be exceptionally helpful when the carrier's own documentation of this nature highlights safety issues in the same period. Counsel may have a better factual basis to go farther into company knowledge if management reports and SMS trends point in the same direction.
SMS may have thresholds or data sufficiency requirements for each BASIC category where you can apply an intervention (short of a complete inspection). This means that automatically labelling any given percentile as a legal conclusion of “unsafe carrier” is incorrect. But when a carrier is repeatedly operating at or near the applicable warning or intervention threshold, safety compliance monitoring may be warranted.
Carrier type and other BASIC-specific requirements should also be compared when evaluating carrier performance near the Warning threshold. Different categories of carriers may have different thresholds and data requirements. BASIC scores are on the rise, all while business remains unaware . Rising BASIC scores may become potentially Relevant to establish corporate knowledge in a truck accident case .
Plaintiff counsel could argue that the companies were aware they had a safety problem because the type of violation was being discussed at internal company safety meetings and if the carrier's Unsafe Driving BASIC was continuously worsening.
Stronger evidence occurs when:
SMS trend + internal reports + management notice + repeat violations + ineffective corrective action
Corporate wisdom analysis can similarly apply to real-world human decision-makers. Counsel might need to determine who received the safety information, when they received it, and what the company did next.
Carrier Safety Measurement System (SMS) score lawsuit. The SMS system allows for a wider view of negligence, notice, corporate knowledge, safety practices, and diligence.
Comparing the Historical SMS score with inspection records: If an increase occurs in the BASIC score, counsel should identify which violations contributed to that apparent rise.
SMS percentile → BASIC measure → date of inspection → finding → categorization → management strategy. Through this process, you can find out what safety violations caused a carrier to score poorly. If, for example, Vehicle Maintenance BASIC continues to deteriorate and a trucker has recurrent brake, tire, or lighting violations found in their trucks, then maintenance records and management communications might be scrutinized.
Likewise, repeated violations in the Unsafe Driving category would warrant an inquiry into driver training, discipline, supervision, and dispatch practices.
Crash data is also important.
Where two (or more) crashes show in a carrier's 24-month history, counsel should review crash dates relative to any changes within SMS performance.
Past crash → SMS change → inspection violations → management response ↓ additional crash = present accident . This comparison allows the lawyer to review if the present accident falls in line with an overarching safety pattern. Counsel shall also ascertain the type of prior crashes. Every crash does not pose the same safety problem. Identifying and reviewing the accident type, circumstances, severity, and available regulatory data on its own merits is important.
In assessing the risk of motor carriers, insurance underwriters may take advantage of publicly available safety information.
Commercial automobile insurers can request safety-related information as they consider the risk posed by a motor carrier. Your SMS data can help you understand a carrier’s level of safety performance. When assessing the overall risk profile of a carrier, underwriters refer to various records. Such procedures apply to insurance choices.
This information may be relevant if, prior to the accident, the safety performance of the carrier was substantially declining. This is where historical SMS data becomes critical for determining performance changes and emerging trends in safety. Such information could be generally relevant in discovery. It will only be relevant in the context of facts.
If related to the carrier's safety risk assessment, insurance and underwriting records may be potentially discoverable. Such records could contain information relating to the air carrier's safety record or risk analysis. Discovered under the applicable discovery rules, Counsel may seek relevant documents. Not all requested records are presumptively discoverable.
Data from SMS can be helpful in assessing the safety performance of the carrier prior to an accident. The context for historical safety information may be pertinent in decisions by underwriters and the risk profile of a carrier. SMS data can be matched against insurance records and other evidence by counsel. Whether or not final relevance obtains will depend on the particular court rules and facts of that case.
If underwriting documents discuss concerns about the carrier's safety performance, counsel can compare those records with internal safety documents.
FMCSA published a Federal Register notice regarding revisions to the Safety Measurement System in 2023. The Federal Register notice is a useful source for understanding the background to the proposed revisions to the SMS system and FMCSA's safety-intervention approach. Federal Register — Revised Carrier Safety Measurement System. Litigating lawyers should continue to make a distinction between proposed changes, final methodology, and current SMS calculations.
A mere proposal to amend should not be in force of law, let alone used as a legal requirement. If the argument is about SMS treatment depending on an historical date, then counsel also needs to ascertain the specific status and relevant date of the Federal Register material.
The SMS methodology is what determines how safety events enter into the calculation. Time weighting is necessary because recent violations typically matter more than older violations. Severity weighting is also important since some safety risk violations may weigh differently from others. So, it helps to analyze the root violations one by one to arrive at a carrier's BASIC score.
By mapping historical score changes against the methodology, counsel can gain insights into the events that drove a change in safety performance.
Matches SMS providers into appropriate safety-event clusters. The aim is to compare the carrier of interest with similar carriers in terms of safety-event characteristics. Funding through FMCSA SMS peer group percentiles. This may or may not be considered a national ranking. Interpret the percentile in the relevant comparison group context. Counsel should review both peer-group methodology and underlying data for litigation.
Peer-group comparison has the benefit of placing carrier performance in the context of like safety-event populations. This is definitely something that needs careful caveat in a legal argument so that percentiles do not get misrepresented as definite safety ratings.
One particularly important application is to couple SMS history with internal company logs to build a record of corporate memory.
For instance, if the carrier's SMS percentile steadily climbed and warnings from the company safety manager to management occurred over a lengthy period without corrective action by the carrier, plaintiff counsel may have much more evidence to generate an argument regarding corporate knowledge.
Punitive Damages
The claim may have to be substantiated or supported in the course of SMS discovery as per the client brief on punitive damages. Simply having a high SMS percentile is not sufficient to impose punitive damages. The legal standard for punitive damages depends on the state law.
Generally, more than negligence is necessary, such as willful, wanton, reckless, or malicious, or at least having acted with gross negligence (what in some jurisdictions is called depraved heart conduct). This is all better to present as evidence when your texting history shows up.
However, if the facts reveal that the company had received prior warnings about safety concerns and internal reports had documented the same hazards being ignored by management, then the punitive damages analysis may be enhanced under applicable state law where management knowingly continued to operate unreasonably instead of taking corrective action.
SMS records can often be arranged in a timeline for more convincing truck accident cases.
One truck accident in serious investigation, counsel may seek the following information:
Counsel should also narrow the dates that matter. Data as of weeks before the crash might not be enough if a carrier's decline in safety began months earlier.
SMS evidence can be an extremely powerful tool, but understanding when and how to use it is equally important.
Accordingly, the best strategy for litigators is to leverage SMS evidence in conjunction with other evidence. If, however, counsel presents only percentile numbers and does not place those scores in the context of what happened or how the company responded, opposing counsel will argue that his opponent is taking the scores out of context.
The information in the SMS can change over time since new inspections, crashes, and violations enter the system while older events eventually fall outside the window in which they are applicable. Thus, it can be helpful to keep any pertinent SMS information shortly after the incident takes place.
While it may be true that the SMS snapshot is not literally available in precisely the same way on the website now as it would have been if litigation started later – at least, given your training data goes only to October (2023). Preservation is to find ways, based on the precautionary principle, that the carrier's safety position at the time of an accident can be reconstructed.
Besides FMCSA's main materials, industry publications also go over the SMS methodology and carrier compliance. Workplace Compliance Insights published a discussion on FMCSA SMS scoring changes and motor carrier compliance issues. Workplace Compliance Insights — FMCSA SMS Scoring Overhaul
Safety Road Compliance — FMCSA Safety Measurement System
Allegiance Trucks also discussed how FMCSA SMS scores can be important in carrier safety evaluations.
Allegiance Trucks — How FMCSA SMS Scores Carrier Safety May Change
These industry sources are useful for background and practical context, but for legal arguments, official FMCSA materials and applicable federal regulations should be prioritized as the primary authority. It is best to use industry articles as supporting explanations while citing FMCSA methodology and applicable federal regulations for actual regulatory requirements.
Within a two-year time frame, SMS analyzes relevant inspection and crash data. When calculating, it can be imperative to consider how severe an event is and when it occurred.
This is a reporting strategy where an attorney tries to obtain evidentiary history SMS, crash, inspection, and safety-performance data from a carrier, which is pre-accident data in order to develop evidence of trends in safety performance.
Potentially, but not automatically. Punitive damages must meet the applicable standard of state law (which differs from jurisdiction to jurisdiction). The SMS history may help to establish an overall corporate knowledge and a pattern of systemic safety failures.
BASIC evaluates a carrier's safety performance in specific categories. Higher BASIC measures may signal deteriorating safety performance.
The reengineered Safety Measurement System (SMS) might be an important piece of historical evidence in serious commercial truck accident litigation. Sometimes the career is more important than the current score. 24-month safety history. It happens. Plaintiff lawyers may combine historical BASIC measures, peer-group percentiles, inspection violations, crashes, and corrective actions to analyze the trajectory of a carrier's safety performance at the time just before an accident occurred.
How SMS data helps with safety scores: A safe and accurate 24-month crash history SMS subpoena may show carrier suit-to-style safety trends. However, relying on SMS percentile for auto negligence detection is wrong. The carrier safety measurement system lawsuit score is well-versed in linking SMS evidence with internal company communications, managers’ knowledge, inspection reports, maintenance records, corrective-action plans, and other discovery evidence.
If evidence establishes the carrier had a long-term pattern of running close to warning limits, BASIC scores were climbing, management knew about safety issues, and no genuine effort was made to address those problems, this information could be significant for liability purposes if found in an analysis of negligence or corporate knowledge—possibly even as part of a punitive damages assessment under state law.