BlogLine

Washington Court of Appeals incorporates special skills of CDL truck drivers when applying the ordinary standard of care

5/6/25

By: Andrea Holburn Bernarding

On April 29, 2025, the Washington Court of Appeals, Division II, found that drivers with a CDL have an enhanced duty of reasonable care, encompassing their knowledge and expertise as a CDL driver.   

The case involves an appeal by Robin Stanley against Sierra Pacific Land & Timber and Marcia Tobey, collectively referred to as Sierra, following the dismissal of Stanley’s negligence claim related to an automobile collision. The collision occurred on May 20, 2019, when Stanley, driving a white van, attempted to turn left at an uncontrolled intersection in Tacoma, Washington. Sierra’s driver, operating a blue semitruck, was heading south and collided with Stanley’s van as he turned. The collision was captured on Sierra’s driver’s dashcam. Heavy traffic had caused the southbound lanes to be backed up, and Stanley’s view was obstructed by other vehicles. He was allegedly waved on by another driver, indicating it was safe to proceed but Sierra’s driver maneuvered into a less congested lane and continued toward the intersection, resulting in the collision. 2025 WL 1230344. 

Stanley claimed the collision caused him injury and filed a negligence action against Sierra. Sierra moved for summary judgment, which the trial court granted, leading to Stanley’s appeal. The appeal argues that there is a material issue of fact regarding whether a reasonable semitruck driver with the same knowledge and expertise as Sierra’s driver would have acted similarly. The court’s decision to grant summary judgment was based on the argument that a commercial driver’s license (CDL) does not enhance the duty of care beyond the ordinary standard. However, Stanley’s expert, V. Paul Herbert, opined that Sierra’s driver failed to exercise the degree of care expected of a commercial truck driver. 2025 WL 1230344, *5. Sierra maintained that there was no enhancement of duty, explaining the standard was the “ordinary duty of care.” 

The appellate court reviewed the summary judgment de novo, considering whether there was a genuine issue of material fact. It concluded that a reasonable jury could find Sierra’s driver negligent, even as the favored driver, as the operation of a semitruck requires special knowledge and expertise, which should be considered when evaluating the driver’s conduct. The court noted that Washington operates under a comparative negligence model, meaning that fault is apportioned between parties and a plaintiff’s fault does not bar recovery. The court found that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment because there were genuine issues of material fact regarding Sierra’s and its driver’s potential negligence. 2025 WL 1230344, *5. 

The appellate court reversed the trial court’s decision and remanded the case for further proceedings, emphasizing that the driver’s CDL and the nature of operating a semitruck should be considered in determining negligence. 2025 WL 1230344, *6.   

While the Court states it is not applying a heightened duty of care, the effect of this ruling could place some portion of responsibility on a commercial driver, even when the favored driver, simply because they have specialized driving skills. 

For any questions or further clarification, please contact Andrea Holburn Bernarding at andrea.bernarding@fmglaw.com or your local FMG attorney.

Information conveyed herein should not be construed as legal advice or represent any specific or binding policy or procedure of any organization. Information provided is for educational purposes only. These materials are written in a general format and are not intended to be advice applicable to any specific circumstance. Legal opinions may vary when based on subtle factual distinctions. All rights reserved. No part of this presentation may be reproduced, published or posted without the written permission of Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP.