Negligent Hiring
& Entrustment
1. United States District Court, D.
Kansas. Terry L. Frederick and Donna F.
Frederick v. Swift Transportation Co., Inc., and Robyn L. Getchel Case No. 06-1332-MLB. Sept. 10, 2008. 591 F.
Supp. 2d 1149 (D. Kan. 2008).
Swift moved to exclude the
Plaintiff’s expert opinion regarding the hiring of the driver. The expert
opined that Swift violated “good industry practice” and was negligent in hiring
Ms. Getchel who failed driving exam multiple times. However, no federal
regulations required a driver to pass exam within a certain number of tries.
The court granted Swift’s motion stating that the jury could evaluate this
information without expert testimony.
2. District Court of Oklahoma. Deanna
Bender, individually and as parent and next friend of Brittany Lee Bender, and
Christina Marie Bender, minor children v. Kathy Sue Fracasso, an individual,
Werner Enterprises, Inc.; the Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania;
Continental Casualty Company, and Markel American Insurance Company Case
No. CJ-2002-258. WL 24302737 (Okl. Dist. 2003).
The Defendants moved to exclude the Plaintiff’s expert,
Kelly Anderson, from testifying in regard to Werner’s hiring, training and
supervision of their employees. The Defendants successfully argued that
Anderson’s opinions were not based on any trucking industry standard, law or
regulation; but rather his experience from working at one company (CFI). One
company’s way of business operations cannot be assumed for an entire industry,
thus, Anderson was precluded from testifying.
Safety History &
Ratings
3. United States District Court, D.
Kansas. Terry L. Frederick and Donna F.
Frederick v. Swift Transportation Co., Inc., and Robyn L. Getchel Case No. 06-1332-MLB. Sept. 10, 2008. 591 F.
Supp 2d 1149 (D. Kan. 2008).
The Defendants moved to exclude
expert testimony regarding government safety compliance audits. The Plaintiffs’
expert opined in regards to a safety compliance audit 5 years prior to case,
which resulted in the motor carrier receiving a less than satisfactory rating.
The Defendants argued that this compliance audit was inadmissible because: (1)
a subsequent compliance audit yielded a satisfactory rating, and (2) there was
no evidence that the earlier safety compliance audit had anything to do with
the accident at issue in this case. As such, the Frederick court excluded
expert testimony on this subject.
4. United States District Court,
W.D. Virginia, Roanoke Division. Winford
Dallas Jones v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, INC. Case No. 7:06CV00547 . 558 F.
Supp. 2d 630 (W.D. Va. 2008).
The Defendant moved to exclude
the introduction of unsatisfactory safety ratings of their employee involved in
the accident. Employee originally received an unsatisfactory rating which was
then changed to a conditional rating. The Defendant asserted it had no duty to
consider the safety rating when hiring, due to their expert, Sandberg, who
opined that only the conditional rating was relevant. The court denied the
Defendant’s motion stating that the unsatisfactory rating is relevant in
evaluation of employee as a carrier and that Robinson could have found his
ratings on the FMCSA website.
No comments:
Post a Comment