Logging Truck Accidents in Oregon: Log Securement and Grades

Why log loads have their own rules

Federal safety rules treat logs as a special kind of cargo, with a section of their own. That section requires equipment that keeps logs from rolling, and additional tiedowns or securement devices when the condition of the wood makes the logs likely to slip upon each other.¹ Oregon's vehicle code also speaks to loads that escape from a vehicle, and it names logs in one of its provisions. This post explains what those rules say, how they apply on Oregon roads, and how a violation can come up in an injury claim after a crash.

The general rule: cargo must not fall or shift

Federal cargo-securement rules apply to trucks, truck tractors, semitrailers, full trailers and pole trailers.² The core requirement is stated in two parts. First, each commercial motor vehicle must, when transporting cargo on public roads, be loaded and equipped, and the cargo secured, "to prevent the cargo from leaking, spilling, blowing or falling from the motor vehicle."² Second, cargo must be contained, immobilized or secured "to prevent shifting upon or within the vehicle to such an extent that the vehicle's stability or maneuverability is adversely affected."² The second part reaches cargo that never leaves the truck.

What the federal log rule requires

The log-specific rule, 49 CFR 393.116, has exceptions. Logs that are unitized by banding or other comparable means, and loads of no more than four processed logs, may be carried under the general cargo rules instead.¹ Firewood, stumps, log debris and other such short logs must be carried in a vehicle or container enclosed on both sides, front, and rear and of adequate strength to contain them.¹

The definitions section for Part 393, 49 CFR 393.5, uses two terms for log length. "Shortwood" means logs typically up to 16 feet long, and "longwood" means logs over 16 feet long, including utility poles.³

For loads covered by the log rule, the requirements include these:

• The right vehicle. Logs must be carried on a vehicle designed and built, or adapted, for logs, fitted with bunks, bolsters, stakes or standards, or other equivalent means, "that cradle the logs and prevent them from rolling."¹
• Strong enough parts. All vehicle components involved in securing logs must be designed and built "to withstand all anticipated operational forces without failure, accidental release or permanent deformation."¹
• Tiedowns plus stakes. Tiedowns must be used together with the bunks, stakes and bolsters, unless the logs are carried in a crib-type log trailer and are loaded in compliance with the rule's component-strength and loading requirements in paragraphs (b)(2) and (c).¹
• Tiedown strength. On a frame vehicle, or a flatbed equipped with bunks, bolsters or stakes, the combined working load limit of the tiedowns securing a stack of logs must be at least one-sixth the weight of the stack.¹
• How the logs sit. Logs must be solidly packed. Each outside log on the side of a stack must touch at least two stakes, bunks, bolsters or standards; if one end does not actually touch a stake, it must rest on other logs in a stable manner and must extend beyond the stake, bunk, bolster or standard. The center of the highest outside log on each side or end must be below the top of each stake, bunk or standard.¹
• Slippery wood. Additional tiedowns or securement devices must be used "when the condition of the wood results in such low friction between logs that they are likely to slip upon each other."¹

The rule then adds requirements for particular load types, such as shortwood loaded crosswise and logs on pole trailers.¹

Checking the load on the road

Under 49 CFR 392.9, a driver may not operate a commercial motor vehicle, and a motor carrier may not require or permit a driver to operate one, unless, among other conditions, the cargo is properly distributed and adequately secured as the cargo rules specify.⁴

The same section sets inspection points for truck drivers. The driver must inspect the cargo and the securing devices within the first 50 miles of a trip and make any needed adjustments.⁴ After that, the driver must reexamine the load and make any necessary adjustment whenever the driver changes duty status, or the truck has been driven for 3 hours, or for 150 miles, whichever occurs first.⁴ These duties do not apply to the driver of a sealed vehicle who has been ordered not to open it, or to a vehicle loaded in a manner that makes inspection of its cargo impracticable.⁴

Do the federal rules apply in Oregon?

Oregon has adopted these federal rules by administrative rule. OAR 740-100-0010 adopts 49 CFR Parts 392 (driving) and 393 (parts and accessories), among others, to be observed by carriers in interstate commerce, subject to ORS chapters 823 and 825.⁵ The rule extends those adopted provisions to carriers in intrastate commerce too, subject to listed exceptions, which concern Parts 385, 387, 390, 391 and 395.⁵

Oregon statutes on loads and dragging logs

Oregon's vehicle code, in ORS chapter 818, has its own load provisions. Under ORS 818.300, a person commits the offense of operating with a sifting or leaking load by driving or moving on a highway a vehicle "so constructed or loaded so as to allow its contents to drop, sift, leak or otherwise escape therefrom."⁶ An owner who "causes or permits" such a vehicle to be driven or moved on a highway also commits the offense.⁶ The section is subject to exemptions listed in ORS 818.310.⁶

ORS 818.320 names logs directly. A person commits the offense of dragging objects on a highway by driving or moving a vehicle "that is dragging upon or over the surface of the highway any logs, poles, piling or other thing."⁷ An owner who causes or permits that commits the offense too.⁷ The section is subject to exemptions listed in ORS 818.330.⁷

Both sections say a violation is subject to civil liability under ORS 818.410.⁶⁷ That section addresses a specific kind of liability: the owner and driver are jointly and severally liable "to the state, county or city for all damage done as a result of the violation."⁸ Claims by people hurt in a crash are discussed below.

Downhill grades: brakes and gears

Federal brake rules and an Oregon coasting statute both bear on downhill driving. Each commercial motor vehicle "must have brakes adequate to stop and hold the vehicle or combination of motor vehicles."⁹ Except as that section otherwise provides, all brakes a vehicle is equipped with "must at all times be capable of operating."¹⁰

The driver has duties as well. No commercial motor vehicle may be driven unless the driver is satisfied that listed parts are in good working order, including the service brakes, trailer brake connections and parking brake, and a driver may not fail to use those parts "when and as needed."¹¹

Oregon law addresses one downhill practice by name. Under ORS 811.495, a driver on a downgrade commits the offense of unlawful coasting if the driver "coasts with the gears or transmission of the motor vehicle in neutral or with the clutch disengaged."¹² The section does not apply to the driver of a motorized bicycle.¹²

How a rule violation can bear on a negligence claim

Oregon courts have long given safety statutes a role in negligence cases.

In Barnum v. Williams, 264 Or 71 (1972), the Oregon Supreme Court held that "if a party is in violation of a motor vehicle statute, such a party is negligent as a matter of law unless such party introduces evidence from which the trier of fact could find that the party was acting as a reasonably prudent person under the circumstances."¹³ The court put it another way: "the violation of a motor vehicle statute creates a presumption of negligence."¹³

In Shahtout v. Emco Garbage Co., 298 Or 598 (1985), the court explained that in a negligence case, when a party relies on a governmental rule to show negligence, the question is whether the rule, "though it was not itself meant to create a civil claim, nevertheless so fixes the legal standard of conduct that there is no question of due care left for a factfinder to determine; in other words, that noncompliance with the rule is negligence as a matter of law."¹⁴ It described its long-standing view that violations of statutory safety rules "by themselves provide the element of negligence with respect to those risks that the rules are meant to prevent, at least unless the violator shows that his conduct in fact did not violate the rule under the circumstances."¹⁴

Those holdings frame some of the questions in a log truck case: whether a statute or rule was violated, whether the injured person is among those it protects and the harm is of the kind it was meant to prevent, whether the rule has the effect Shahtout described, and whether the violator can show reasonable conduct of the kind Barnum allows. Later decisions describe that last step as a burden on the violator: once a violation is proven, "the burden shifts to the violator to prove that he or she acted reasonably under the circumstances."¹⁵ The same footnote adds that a statute setting the standard of care "addresses only one element of a negligence claim; other elements remain unaffected and must be established."¹⁵ An Oregon attorney would weigh those questions against evidence such as loading and inspection records and the condition of the load and brakes after the crash. More on Oregon truck crash claims is on the Oregon trucking accidents page. Related topics include carrier and driver liability and hours-of-service limits.

This article is educational

This article describes Oregon law in general terms. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Time limits matter. Most Oregon personal-injury and auto-accident claims must be filed within two years of the injury or accident. Medical malpractice claims must be filed within two years of when you knew or reasonably should have known of the negligence, with an outer limit of five years from the act itself (with a fraud exception). Wrongful death claims must be filed within three years of the date of death. Claims against public bodies (cities, counties, state agencies, public hospitals) require a notice of claim within 180 days. Missing these deadlines typically ends a case.

If you think you may have a claim, call Huegli Law at 971-317-6436 for a free case review. Todd Huegli is licensed in Oregon and consults on cases in Oregon only.

Footnotes

1. 49 CFR 393.116 — Specific securement requirements for logs (eCFR). https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-49/subtitle-B/chapter-III/subchapter-B/part-393/subpart-I/section-393.116 ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶ ↩⁷ ↩⁸ ↩⁹ ↩¹⁰

2. 49 CFR 393.100 — Applicability and general requirements of cargo securement standards (eCFR). https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-49/subtitle-B/chapter-III/subchapter-B/part-393/subpart-I/section-393.100 ↩ ↩² ↩³

3. 49 CFR 393.5 — Definitions (eCFR). https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-49/subtitle-B/chapter-III/subchapter-B/part-393/subpart-A/section-393.5 ↩

4. 49 CFR 392.9 — Inspection of cargo, cargo securement devices and systems (eCFR). https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-49/subtitle-B/chapter-III/subchapter-B/part-392/subpart-A/section-392.9 ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴

5. OAR 740-100-0010 — Adoption of Federal Safety Regulations. https://secure.sos.state.or.us/oard/view.action?ruleNumber=740-100-0010 ↩ ↩²

6. ORS 818.300 — Operating with sifting or leaking load; civil liability; penalty (ORS chapter 818). https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors818.html ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴

7. ORS 818.320 — Dragging objects on highway; civil liability; penalty (ORS chapter 818). https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors818.html ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴

8. ORS 818.410 — Civil liability for certain violations (ORS chapter 818). https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors818.html ↩

9. 49 CFR 393.40 — Required brake systems (eCFR). https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-49/subtitle-B/chapter-III/subchapter-B/part-393/subpart-C/section-393.40 ↩

10. 49 CFR 393.48 — Brakes to be operative (eCFR). https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-49/subtitle-B/chapter-III/subchapter-B/part-393/subpart-C/section-393.48 ↩

11. 49 CFR 392.7 — Equipment, inspection and use (eCFR). https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-49/subtitle-B/chapter-III/subchapter-B/part-392/subpart-A/section-392.7 ↩

12. ORS 811.495 — Unlawful coasting on downgrade; exception; penalty (ORS chapter 811). https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors811.html ↩ ↩²

13. Barnum v. Williams, 264 Or 71, 504 P2d 122 (1972). Caselaw Access Project. https://static.case.law/or/264/cases/0071-01.json ↩ ↩²

14. Shahtout v. Emco Garbage Co., 298 Or 598, 695 P2d 897 (1985). Caselaw Access Project. https://static.case.law/or/298/cases/0598-01.json ↩ ↩²

15. Deckard v. Bunch, 358 Or 754, 761 n 6 (2016). Oregon Judicial Department. https://ojd.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p17027coll3/id/5546 ↩ ↩²