Motor Carrier Claims for Negligent Entrustment, Hiring and...
Transcript of Motor Carrier Claims for Negligent Entrustment, Hiring and...
The audio portion of the conference may be accessed via the telephone or by using your computer's
speakers. Please refer to the instructions emailed to registrants for additional information. If you
have any questions, please contact Customer Service at 1-800-926-7926 ext. 10.
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A
Motor Carrier Claims for Negligent
Entrustment, Hiring and Retention Navigating Discovery, Apportionment of Fault, Impact of
Motor Carrier's Admission of Vicarious Liability, and More
Today’s faculty features:
1pm Eastern | 12pm Central | 11am Mountain | 10am Pacific
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 16, 2017
J. Kent Emison, Partner, Langdon & Emison, Kansas City, Mo.
Patrick E. Foppe, Esq., Lashly & Baer, St. Louis
Matthew Wright, Founder, Wright Law, Franklin, Tenn.
Tips for Optimal Quality
Sound Quality
If you are listening via your computer speakers, please note that the quality
of your sound will vary depending on the speed and quality of your internet
connection.
If the sound quality is not satisfactory, you may listen via the phone: dial
1-866-869-6667 and enter your PIN when prompted. Otherwise, please
send us a chat or e-mail [email protected] immediately so we can
address the problem.
If you dialed in and have any difficulties during the call, press *0 for assistance.
Viewing Quality
To maximize your screen, press the F11 key on your keyboard. To exit full screen,
press the F11 key again.
FOR LIVE EVENT ONLY
Continuing Education Credits
In order for us to process your continuing education credit, you must confirm your
participation in this webinar by completing and submitting the Attendance
Affirmation/Evaluation after the webinar.
A link to the Attendance Affirmation/Evaluation will be in the thank you email
that you will receive immediately following the program.
For additional information about continuing education, call us at 1-800-926-7926
ext. 35.
FOR LIVE EVENT ONLY
Program Materials
If you have not printed the conference materials for this program, please
complete the following steps:
• Click on the ^ symbol next to “Conference Materials” in the middle of the left-
hand column on your screen.
• Click on the tab labeled “Handouts” that appears, and there you will see a
PDF of the slides for today's program.
• Double click on the PDF and a separate page will open.
• Print the slides by clicking on the printer icon.
FOR LIVE EVENT ONLY
MOTOR CARRIER CLAIMS FOR NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT,
HIRING AND RETENTION
Presenters:
Patrick E. Foppe
Matthew E. Wright
Kent Emison
About your Presenter
Patrick E. Foppe frequently defends claims involving commercial motor vehicle accidents. He
conducts rapid response investigations to serious accidents as part of Lashly & Baer’s Rapid
Response Team. Patrick serves on the Defense Research Institute’s (DRI) Trucking Law
Committee’s Steering Committee and is the Chair of Publications. He also serves on the
Transportation Lawyers Association’s (TLA) Executive Committee and is Vice-Chair of its
Membership Committee. He has received numerous awards for his pro bono work, community
service, and professional accomplishments. Patrick is also a regular author and is an invited
speaker by many industry groups. Patrick and his wife Kate have seven children.
Lashly & Baer, P.C.
714 Locust Street
St. Louis, Missouri 63101
314-621-2939
6
Presentation Outline
I. Derivative Liability
A. Elements of Various Causes of Action
B. Majority and Minority Rule
C. Punitive Damages Exception
II. Where Does the Rubber Meets the Road?
III. Discovery Strategies
I. FMCSR Implications
II. Key Documents and Deposition Considerations
IV. Trial Strategies and Practical Tips
7
Overview of “Derivative” Liability
• Negligent entrustment, hiring, retaining, training or supervising claims
• Often used to introduce evidence, which is not directly related to the
accident, against the motor carrier or others
• Seeks to hold a principal/entrustor directly liable for negligently hiring,
retaining, training or supervising its agent/entrustee who causes injury to
another
• Unlike respondeat superior liability, which simply holds a principal vicariously
liable for the wrongful acts of its agent, deriviate claims mainly focus on the
principal/entrustor’s conduct
― the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury is the principal/entrustor’s
negligence in entrusting, hiring, retaining, training or supervising the
agent/entrustee
• Imposing liability on the principal/entrustor requires a finding of culpability
by the agent/entrustee in causing an injury to a third party; thus, liability is
“derivative”
8
Overview of the FMCSR
• The FMCSR generally apply to all “employers” and “commercial motor vehicles,”
which transport property or passengers in interstate commerce. See FMCSR §
390.3(a).
• An “employer” is generally a person engaged in a business affecting interstate
commerce that owns or leases a “commercial motor vehicle” in connection with
that business, or assigns employees to operate it. Id.
• Every employer shall be knowledgeable of and comply with all the regulations
contained in the FMCSR which are applicable to that motor carrier’s operations.
See FMCSR § 390.3(e)(1).
• Every driver and employee shall be instructed regarding, and shall comply with, all
applicable regulations contained in the FMCSR. See FMCSR § 390.3(e)(1).
• Whenever under the FMCSR a duty is prescribed for a driver or a prohibition is
imposed upon the driver, it is the duty of the motor carrier to require observance
of such duty or prohibition. See FMCSR § 390.11.
9
Duties Imposed Upon Motor Carriers Under the FMCSR
• § 383 – duty to have a CDL;
• § 382 – duty to drug and alcohol test;
• § 391.11 – duty to ensure the qualifications of the driver (i.e. valid
drivers license, list of violations, etc.);
• § 391.21 – duty to have a proper application for employment;
• § 391.23 – duty to do background investigation;
• § 391.27 – duty to provide a record of violations;
• § 391.31 – duty to take a road test and secure a certificate of driver’s
road test;
• § 391.41 – duty to secure a medical examiner’s certificate;
10
Duties Imposed Upon Motor Carriers Under the FMCSR
• § 391.51 – duty to maintain driver qualification file;
• § 391.53 – duty to maintain driver investigation history file;
• § 392.3 – duty to drive while not ill or fatigued;
• § 392.4 – duty to drive while not under the influence of drugs;
• § 392.6 – duty to provide schedules to conform with speed limits;
• § 395.3 – duty to conform to “hours of service” rules or maximum
driving time;
• § 395.8 – duty to maintain driver logs;
• § 396.3 – duty to maintain inspection, repair, and maintenance
records ; and
• § 396.11– duty to maintain driver vehicle inspection reports.
11
Negligent Entrustment - Elements
1. The entrustee (driver) was incompetent by reason of age, inexperience,
habitual recklessness or otherwise;
2. The entrustor (motor carrier or others) knew or had reason to know of the
entrustee’s incompetence;
3. There was entrustment of the chattel (tractor and/or trailer); and
4. The negligence of the entrustor concurred with the conduct of the entrustee
to cause the plaintiff’s injuries.
Restatement (2nd) of Torts § 390:
― One who supplies directly or through a third person a chattel for the use
of another whom the supplier knows or has reason to know to be likely
because of his youth, inexperience, or otherwise, to use it in a manner
involving unreasonable risk of physical harm to himself and others
whom the supplier should expect to share in or be endangered by its
use, is subject to liability for physical harm resulting to them.
12
Negligent Entrustment - Considerations
• Generally, an employer-employee relationship need not be proven.
• Implicit is that the harm must have resulted from the use of the
tractor (or trailer?).
• Entrustment can be shown through the giving of express or implied
permission. Rainey by & Through Rainey v. Pitera, 651 N.E.2d 747
(1st Dist. 1995).
• Plaintiff must generally prove that entrustor actually knew or had
reason to know the driver was incompetent or reckless in driving.
Halford v. Alamo Rent-a-Car, LLC, 921 So. 2d 409 (Ala. 2005).
• In theory, a driver is not required to have a spotless driving record to
be considered a competent driver. See e.g., Askew v. R & L Transfer,
Inc., 676 F. Supp. 2d 1298 (M.D. Ala. 2009).
13
Negligent Entrustment - Considerations
• Typically, the plaintiff must prove that the entrustor knew or should
have known of the driver’s incompetence by showing “evidence of
precious acts of negligent or reckless driving . . . previous accidents,
or previous acts of driving while intoxicated.” Id.
• In the context of a trucking case, the driver’s driving record becomes
central to the analysis as motor carriers have an obligation under the
FMCSRs to investigate their driver’s records (more later).
• In a case where the claims against the driver are the only claims in
the lawsuit, his driving record may not be admissible as it is
prejudicial character evidence.
• However, where the claims against the employer are joined with
those against the driver, the driving record may be admissible
notwithstanding the potential for prejudice. See Bruck v. Jim Walter
Corp., 470 So. 2d 1141 (Ala. 1985). 14
Negligent Hiring/Retention - Elements
1. The employer knew or should have known that the
employee had a particular unfitness for the position
so as to create a danger of harm to third persons;
2. Such particular unfitness was known or should have
been known at the time of the employee’s hiring or
retention; and
3. This particular unfitness proximately caused the
plaintiff’s injury.
See e.g., Van Horne v. Muller, 705 N.E.2d 898 (Ill. 1998).
15
Negligent Hiring/Retention - Considerations
• Implicit to cause of action for negligent hiring and retention is a
threshold requirement that plaintiff prove that employer-employee
relationship existed between the employer and negligent driver.
• Some jurisdictions require the negligent driver to be acting within
the course and scope of his/her employment to pursue these claims.
• Other States, like Missouri, only require employer to have played
some role in bringing the offending employee into contact with the
injured party. Hare v. Cole, 25 S.W.3d 617 (Mo. App. W.D. 2000).
• In some jurisdictions, the “particular unfitness” language is replaced
by “dangerous proclivity”.
• The “particular unfitness” element is particularly important: the
tortious conduct of the driver must be consistent with the known
particular unfitness/dangerous proclivity.
16
Negligent Supervision – Elements
• Some jurisdictions use the same basic elements as negligent retention/hiring above.
• Other States simply require the plaintiff to prove that: (1) an employer had a duty to
supervise its employees, (2) the employer negligently supervised an employee, and (3)
such negligence proximately caused the plaintiff's injuries. See e.g., Mueller v.
Community Consolidated School District 54, 678 N.E.2d 660 (1st Dist. 1997).
• Still other States have adopted the Restatement (2nd) of Torts § 317:
A master is under a duty to exercise reasonable care so to control his servant while
acting outside the scope of his employment as to prevent him from intentionally
harming others or from so conducting himself as to create an unreasonable risk of harm
to them, if:
― The servant is using a chattel of the master; and
― The master knows or has reason to know that he has the ability to control his
servant; and
― The master knows or should know of the necessity and opportunity for exercising
such control.
• See e.g., Truck Ins. Exch. v. Prairie Framing, LLC, 162 S.W.3d 64, 82 (Mo. App. W.D.
2005).
17
Majority vs. Minority Rule
• Majority rule: an employer’s admission of an agency relationship with
the driver (respondeat superior liability) bars a plaintiff from seeking
any other theory of derivative liability
― The rationale: once liability is imputed through agency, other
theories serve no real purpose other than to waste the court’s
time and energy and introduce potentially inflammatory
evidence.
• Minority rule: an admission of agency does not preclude a separate
claim brought under other theories of derivative liability
― The rationale: those other theories are distinct from agency in
that they are not derivative of the employee’s negligence
18
Majority vs. Minority Rule – Jurisdictions
MAJORITY RULE Citation MINORITY RULE Citation
Missouri McHaffie v. Bunch, 891 S.W.2d 822 (Mo. banc 1995)
Kansas Marquis v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 961 P.2d 1213 (Kan. 1998)
Indiana Tindall v. Enderle, 320 N.E.2d 764 (Ind. Ct. App. 1974)
Minnesota Lim v. Interstate Sys. Steel Div., Inc., 435 N.W. 830 (Minn. Ct. App. 1989)
Georgia Bartja v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, 463 S.E.2d 358 (Ga. 1995)
New Jersey Di Cosala v. Kay, 450 S.2d 508 (N.J. 1982)
Florida Clooney v. Geeting, 352 So. 2d 1216 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)
Ohio Clark v. Stewart, 185 N.E. 71 (Ohio 1933)
Texas Arrington’s Estate v. Fields, 578 S.W.2d 173 (Tex. Civ. App. 1979)
South Carolina James v. Kelly Trucking Co., 661 S.E.2d 329 (S.C. 2008)
Washington LaPlant v. Snohomich Cty., 271 P./3d 254, 357 (Wash. App. 2011)
Tennessee Ali v. Fisher, 145 S.W.3d 557 (Tenn. 2004)
Arkansas Elrod v. G. & R. Constr. Co., 628 S.W.2d 17 (Ark. 1982)
Alaska Pagenkopf v. Chatham Elec., Inc., 165 P.3d 634 (Alaska 2007)
*This is only a partial list of jurisdictions. Some States have yet to rule either way.
19
The “Punitive Damages Exception”
• Some jurisdictions that follow the majority rule allow those other
claims to proceed should they plead sufficient facts to support a
claim for punitive damages against the entrustor/principal. See e.g.,
Wilson v. Image Flooring, LLC, 400 S.W.3d 386, 392-93 (Mo. App. W.D.
2013). Some courts allow allegations of “willful and wanton” or
“gross negligence” to proceed. See e.g., Locket v. Bi-State Transit
Authority, 445 N.E.2d 310 (Ill. 1983); Adams Leasing Co. v. Knighton,
456 S.W.2d 574 (Tex. Civ. App. 1970).
• Jurisdictions that allow the punitive damages exception include:
― Missouri, Illinois, Texas, Indiana, Georgia and North Carolina
• The entrustor/principal’s conduct should be willful and wanton
• Can a principal be held vicariously liable for an agent’s punitive
conduct?
― “Complicity rule” under Restatement (2nd) of Torts § 909
20
Example – Employer Found Liable
Boyd v. L.G. DeWitt Trucking Co., Inc.
405 S.E.2d 914 (N.C. Ct. App. 1991)
• Driver had two convictions for DUI, three convictions for reckless
driving, and six speeding convictions.
• Driver had worked for employer “off and on” for about 20 years.
• The night of the incident, the driver had been drinking. He drove his
rig into the back of a pickup truck, instantly killing the decedent and
a young passenger.
• The court held that a reasonable jury could find that the employer
knew or should have known that the driver posed a danger to the
driving public, and the employer was negligent in entrusting the
truck to him. Further, due to the severity and number of the driver’s
offenses, the evidence was sufficient to find that the employer’s
entrustment of a truck to the driver was willful or wanton, thus
supporting punitive damages.
21
Negligent Entrustment - Frohardt v. Bassett, 788 N.E.2d 462 (Ct. App. Ind. 2003),
• Plaintiff’s brought a claim for negligent entrustment against Penske Truck Leasing
(not a motor carrier).
• Penske’s rental agent did not question Bassett about his health, request a medical
certification, require him to take a driving test or demonstrate his driving skill
before renting him the truck.
• The Frohardts’ were injured by Basset when their car slowed for traffic congestion
and Bassett rear-ended them with the rented truck.
• Upon rental of the truck, Bassett presented a valid driver’s license to Penske.
Bassett did not appear to be intoxicated and seemed to be a competent adult . . .
Bassett testified that he had driven a similar truck before and knew the difference
between a car and a truck of this size.
• The Court dismissed the Frohardts’ negligent entrustment claims against Penske,
reasoning that the Frohardts failed to show Penske entrusted the rental truck to
Bassett with “actual and immediate knowledge” he was incompetent to drive.
22
Example – Employer Found Not Liable
Interim Personnel of Central Virginia v. Messer
559 S.E.2d 704 (Va. 2002)
• A driver was twice convicted of DUI, failed to pay fines or attend
counseling, and was declared a “habitual offender.”
• Employer hired him to do administrative work as well as make short
deliveries to the post office. The driver hid his criminal offenses from
the employer.
• The driver stole a third party’s truck, operated the truck while
intoxicated “for his own frolic,” and crashed into the plaintiff’s
vehicle, injuring her.
• The employer was held NOT LIABLE because the prior acts would not
place a reasonable employer on notice or make it foreseeable that
the driver would steal a truck, drive it while intoxicated, and cause
an accident distant from his place of work.
23
Graves Amendment Protections Against the Mere Owner of Equipment
• The Graves Amendment, 49 U.S.C. § 30106(a) generally bans the imposition of
vicarious liability on owners/lessors of motor vehicles for harm resulting from the
operation of the vehicles. See e.g., Windmill Distrib. Co. L.P. v. Hartford Fire Ins.
Co., 449 F. App’x 81, 82 (2nd Cir. 2012); United States v. Mandel, 647 F.3d 710, 722
(7th Cir. 2011). The Graves Amendment provides in part:
― An owner of a motor vehicle that rents or leases the vehicle to a person (or an
affiliate of the owner) shall not be liable under the law of any state or
political subdivision thereof, by reason of being the owner of the vehicle (or
an affiliate of the owner), for harm to persons or property that results or
arises out of the use, operation, or possession of the vehicle during the period
of the rental or lease, if:
― The owner (or an affiliate of the owner) is engaged in the trade or business
of renting or leasing motor vehicles; and
― There is no negligence or criminal wrongdoing on the part of the owner (or
an affiliate of the owner).
24
Graves Amendment – “Savings Clause”
• Application of the “savings clause”:
― Carton v. GMAC, the Eighth Circuit stated, “Although the Graves Amendment
prohibits vicarious liability claims against owners of leased vehicles, the
Graves Amendment contains a savings clause which allows an owner of a
leased vehicle to be found directly liable for the owner’s negligence or
criminal wrongdoing.” 611 F.3d. 451, 457 (8th Cir. 2010).
― The Eighth Circuit concluded that Plaintiff’s negligent entrustment claim
would be allowed as a direct claim against the equipment owner under Iowa
law. Id. at 457-59.
― However, in some states like Missouri, claims for negligent hiring, supervision,
retention or negligent entrustment are all various forms of “vicarious
liability.” See e.g., Coomer v. Kansas City Royals Baseball Corp., 437 S.W.3d
184, 205-06 (Mo. banc 2014).
25
Graves Amendment – Considerations
― Can protect owners of trailers. See 49 U.S.C.A. § 30102(a)(6).
See e.g., Yoon Young Lee v. Rivera, 27 Misc. 3d 1201(A), 910
N.Y.S.2d 409, Slip Op. 50517(U) (Sup. Ct. 2010); Johnson v. Xtra
Lease, LLC, No. 08 C 5042, 2010 WL 706037 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 24,
2010).
― Summary judgment granted to lessor where plaintiffs failed to
adduce any evidence of lessor's negligence, including lessor's
failure to maintain brakes on 2003 Freightliner tractor-trailer.
Berkan v. Penske Truck Leasing Canada, Inc., 535 F.Supp.2d 341
(W.D.N.Y.2008).
― Granting lessor's motion to dismiss where plaintiff failed to
supply any legal authority imposing a legal duty on lessors to
investigate lessees' driving records. Vedder v. Cox et al., 859
N.Y.S.2d 900 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.2008).
26
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
49
50
51
52
53
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82