Limiting Direct Corporate Exposure in Commercial Motor Vehicle Cases

Accidents happen. When accidents happen between a passenger vehicle and a commercial motor vehicle, litigation can often result. Plaintiffs’ counsel are often sophisticated and experienced in prosecuting claims, invoking outrage against motor carriers and asserting direct negligence claims against corporate defendants.

These direct negligence claims often argue that a motor carrier was negligent in hiring, supervising, or retaining a driver. Compliance with Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration requirements is critical, as is demonstrating other ways a company sought to enforce best practices in its risk mitigation strategies.

Recent cases have highlighted ways attorneys can successfully defend direct corporate negligence claims in commercial motor vehicle accident cases. For example, Pennsylvania state and federal courts will dismiss direct corporate negligence claims when a driver is acting in the course and scope of their employment at the time of the accident and no punitive damages are sought. The rationale behind these outcomes is that liability of the company is vicarious, and rests on the liability of its driver. Additional evidence suggesting that the company may have been negligent in its hiring, training, and supervision of the driver is duplicative and prejudicial.

Even when punitive damages are sought, some courts have dismissed these claims at the summary judgment stage when the facts elicited in discovery are insufficient to support a claim of reckless conduct. Such situations involve the failure to show use of a handheld device or speeding on the part of the driver, low-speed backing accidents, or the absence of evidence that a driver attempted to flee the scene.

West Virginia law is not so clear on whether such direct negligence claims will be dismissed, but the state does not recognize a standalone claim for negligent training or supervision. Rather, there must be a finding of an underlying harm caused by the negligence of an employee before the negligent training or supervision claim can impose direct corporate negligence. This allows for an argument that, if the acts or omissions of the negligent training or supervision claim do not relate directly to the underlying negligence of the employee, the direct claims are not viable.

In any event, and at least in Pennsylvania, dismissal of the direct corporate negligence claim streamlines the issues to be decided at trial, and avoids the necessity of exposing a corporate representative to cross-examination on the witness stand in front of a jury. Accordingly, uncertainty can be reduced, and a sophisticated plaintiff’s counsel can be disarmed of powerful arguments that might resonate in the jury room.