Federal Court Denies Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment After Further Analysis of “Corporate Liability”

This matter involved a collision between a train and a tractor-trailer. The plaintiff moved for summary judgement with respect to the defendants’ negligence, and the motion was denied. 

The federal court provided an in-depth analysis of the factors it reviewed in finding an issue of fact as to whether “corporate liability” should be applied to the driver’s employer. The court differentiated the criteria respondeat superior and negligent hiring and supervision. To establish “corporate liability,” a plaintiff must prove: “(1) an employer knew or had reason to know that the failure to supervise or train an employee in a certain way would create a risk of harm and (2) that risk of harm materializes and causes the plaintiff’s damages.” 

The defendant argued that its employee had over 200 hours of classroom training to drive a truck; had been trained to drive over train tracks; had traveled over train tracks with a trainer; and had learned how to shift to a low gear for more traction when driving over train tracks. The court found this to be sufficient to deny the plaintiff’s summary judgment motion on liability. 
 

_{Case Law Alerts, 4th Quarter, October 2023 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2023 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}