Now that brokers can be held liable for hiring an unsafe motor carrier, the conversation quickly turned to a related issue: can shippers also be held liable?
That was the question that the Texas Supreme Court answered within 24 hours after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on broker liability. Shipper liability has been less controversial, but that did not stop one plaintiffs’ attorney from roping in the customer.
The case centers on a fatal crash involving a Werner Enterprises truck. The truck driver allegedly ran a red light and struck and killed a motorcyclist. At the time, the Werner driver was hauling a load for Home Depot.
The victim’s family sued Werner and its driver. They later added Home Depot to the lawsuit. Home Depot asked a Harris County district court to dismiss it from the case, claiming the home improvement company had nothing to do with Werner or its driver.
That request was denied. A state court of appeals also denied Home Depot’s bid to be immediately yanked from the case, taking the shipper liability case all the way up to the Texas Supreme Court. It is there that Home Depot got the relief it sought.
‘Liability twice removed’
In ordering the trial court to dismiss Home Depot from the case, the Texas Supreme Court spent more time pointing out what was not being alleged rather than what was.
Although there could be circumstances when a shipper could be held liable, this is not one of them. The Texas Supreme Court noted it would turn “the commonplace act of shipping goods into a basis for sweeping tort liability untethered from control, conduct, and risk.”
In this shipper liability case, the plaintiffs never claimed that Home Depot had any control of the Werner truck, let alone employed or supervised the driver. In no way did Home Depot direct the truck’s operation as a broker might. Furthermore, the cargo was about as standard as it gets. It was not hazardous and was properly loaded onto the truck.
In Texas, anyone who hires an independent contractor is generally not liable for the contractor’s misconduct. Exceptions apply when someone exercises control over the contractor. Home Depot had no such control.
“Their claim that Home Depot negligently hired Werner who negligently hired a negligent driver is derivative of derivative liability,” the Texas Supreme Court states. “That is liability twice removed.
Regardless, the plaintiffs argue that Home Depot knew or should have known that Werner hires reckless or incompetent drivers.
Specifically, Home Depot failed to screen Werner and overlooked the carrier’s Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration and Department of Transportation violations. Home Depot is also accused of ignoring a safety record that shows more than 850 reportable collisions in the last two years.
While some may have opinions about who mega carriers hire, the official record tells a different story. As the Texas Supreme Court pointed out, the plaintiff never asserts Werner’s official safety rating was anything other than satisfactory.
Essentially, the Texas Supreme Court adopted the argument brokers used in the U.S. Supreme Court case: private companies shouldn’t have to double-check the work of the federal government.
“Where, as here, the cargo poses no inherent risk, private parties should not be required to duplicate that comprehensive federal safety regime or qualitatively evaluate and rank the safety fitness of more than a million regulated carriers before engaging in routine commerce,” the Texas Supreme Court wrote/ “Such a duty would be neither practical nor workable. Instead, a shipper of such cargo should ordinarily be entitled to rely on the carrier to conduct business lawfully and to utilize proper equipment.” LL
Credit: Source link
