Can a trucking company in Louisiana delete the driver's electronic logs or dash data after a serious wreck?
No. After a serious truck crash, the carrier should preserve key evidence, and some records are only kept for a short time unless someone demands they be saved.
Under FMCSA rules, a motor carrier generally must keep hours-of-service and ELD records for 6 months. That means a log showing how long the driver was behind the wheel can disappear fast if no preservation demand goes out. Other evidence, like dash cam video, Qualcomm messages, dispatch records, maintenance files, driver qualification files, GPS data, and engine control module "black box" downloads, may also be overwritten or discarded under company retention policies.
In Louisiana, intentional destruction of evidence can lead to spoliation sanctions or an adverse inference, meaning a judge or jury can assume the missing evidence would have hurt the trucking company. Louisiana does not treat every missing record the same way, though. If data was routinely overwritten before the company had notice of a claim, that is different from deleting it after a wreck with catastrophic injuries.
The company that must preserve records is usually the motor carrier listed on the truck's USDOT or MC number, not just the individual driver. A broker often arranged the load but usually is not the carrier operating the truck. That matters because a broker's required financial security is typically a $75,000 bond or trust, while an interstate for-hire carrier usually must carry at least $750,000 in liability coverage. If the truck was hauling certain hazardous materials, the minimum can be $1 million or $5 million.
Louisiana's general injury deadline is now 2 years from the crash for newer claims, but evidence should be demanded immediately, not near the filing deadline.
Nothing on this page should be taken as legal advice — it's general information that may not apply to your specific case. If you've been hurt, a lawyer can tell you where you actually stand.
Get a free case review →