By Alex Stalvey
A troubling development emerged recently out of California: a federal audit found that the California DMV issued tens of thousands of commercial driver’s licenses (“CDLs”) to non-domiciled drivers whose eligibility could not be fully verified.
In some cases, drivers held valid-looking licenses years beyond the expiration of their lawful presence in the U.S. Federal officials described the situation as “egregious” and ordered California to pause issuance, identify noncompliant licenses, and re-issue or revoke them.
This triggered a question: If you’re in South Carolina (or anywhere else) and are involved in an accident caused by a truck driver holding a California-issued CDL, could the state be liable?
The short answer: no, at least not directly. But there is a path to meaningful recovery, and it reverts to the basics of a trucking accident.
Three Reasons Why the State (California) Can’t Be Named a Direct Defendant
- Sovereign Immunity and State Liability
States generally enjoy sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment, meaning they cannot be sued in other states’ courts (or, often, in federal courts) without their express consent. California has not opened itself to tort suits by out-of-state crash victims arising from its licensing practices. Thus, even if the DMV’s licensing process was problematic, you likely cannotsue the State of California as a defendant. - Licensing Oversight ≠ Private Right of Action
While the federal audit suggests California’s CDL issuance system failed to meet regulatory standards, that alone does not create a private right of action for crash victims. It’s pretty simple: the fact that a state licensing agency may have cut corners doesn’t automatically give you a ticket to sue the state. The real key is how the commercial carrier and driver performed (or failed to perform) their legal duties. - Licensing is Only Part of the Chain
Holding an incorrectly issued CDL raises legitimate safety questions, but the licensing state is several links removed from the crash scene. What really matters, and what a judge will focus on, is the driver’s competence, the carrier’s hiring and oversight, and the vehicle’s maintenance and compliance. These are actionable under state tort law and federal trucking regulations.
So, Where Should Your Focus Be?
The question of who’s actually liable for a trucking accident often feels complicated. But as I explained in a previous blog post, the most straightforward path to recovery typically runs through multiple parties, including the driver and the carrier.
Federal law already provides several layers of protection to keep unsafe or improperly licensed drivers off the road. Under FMCSA regulations, every carrier must verify a driver’s qualifications before allowing them behind the wheel. That includes confirming the driver’s CDL through national databases, reviewing their motor vehicle record in every state where they’ve been licensed, and maintaining a complete Driver Qualification File.
Carriers are also expected to check the Drug & Alcohol Clearinghouse for violations, review crash and inspection histories through the Pre-Employment Screening Program, and conduct their own road tests or training to confirm the driver’s competence.
When followed correctly, these safeguards make it nearly impossible for an unqualified driver to slip through.
But when companies cut corners or rely too heavily on a state’s paperwork instead of doing their own due diligence, that’s when danger and liability enter the picture.
What It Takes to Prove a Carrier Knew a Driver Was Unqualified
To hold a trucking company responsible for hiring a driver with an improperly issued CDL, an attorney must show the carrier knew or should have known the driver wasn’t qualified to be on the road. That proof often comes from three areas:
- Missed Verification Steps
The carrier skipped mandatory background checks, failed to confirm the driver’s CDL through federal databases, or ignored inconsistent or expired records.
- Industry Awareness
The company knew there were problems with specific state licensing systems, such as California’s, but continued hiring drivers from those programs without additional review.
- Ignored Red Flags
Internal records revealed safety violations, suspended licenses, or failed medical certifications that were overlooked to keep trucks moving.
These facts could show more than simple negligence. They could reveal a pattern of reckless disregard for public safety. When a carrier chooses to put profit or convenience ahead of compliance, the law allows victims to pursue not just compensation, but potentially punitive damages as well.
Why This Matters for Injured Victims
When a catastrophic crash happens, the licensing dump from California might make headlines, but pursuing the state for damages is wasted energy. Your attorney should focus on the driver’s negligent conduct and the carrier’s legal responsibilities. By reframing your case this way, you avoid the trap of chasing a state that is effectively immune, and instead focus on parties who are legally responsible, insured, and reachable.
In short, the state licensing system may be broken in some respects, but that breakdown is not your direct pathway to compensation. The path is the truck driver, the trucking company, and the network of duties they owed to keep the public safe. That is where your legal leverage lies.
I have handled complex trucking accident cases, understand the laws that impact your claim, and have the resources to take on trucking companies and their insurers. If you’ve been in an accident, you need a strong and experienced advocate by your side.
Reach out, and let’s discuss your case.
