Hawes v. Bailey et al
Filing
35
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER - For the foregoing reasons, the defendants motion to dismiss (Doc. 29) is GRANTED, and Hawes claims for negligent or wanton entrustment, hiring, training, supervision, and retention are dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). Signed by Magistrate Judge Staci G Cornelius on 1/3/2019. (KEK)
FILED
2019 Jan-03 AM 10:30
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
BERDINA HAWES,
Plaintiff,
v.
JAMES DARRELL BAILEY, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 2:17-cv-01811-SGC
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER1
This is a personal injury action arising out of a motor vehicle accident.
Before the undersigned is the defendants’ motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims
for negligent or wanton entrustment, hiring, training, supervision, and retention
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. 29). The
plaintiff agrees these claims are due to be dismissed. (Doc. 31). For the reasons
discussed below, the motion is due to be granted, and the plaintiff’s claims for
negligent or wanton entrustment, hiring, training, supervision, and retention are
due to be dismissed with prejudice.
I. Procedural History
Berdina Hawes commenced this action against James Darrell Bailey and
Carnes Trucking Co., Inc. in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama.
1
The parties have consented to the exercise of dispositive jurisdiction by a magistrate judge
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (Doc. 15).
(Doc. 1-1). The defendants removed the action to this district court on the basis of
diversity jurisdiction. (Doc. 1).2 Thereafter, the defendants filed a motion to
dismiss certain of Hawes’ claims, including those for negligent entrustment and
negligent hiring, supervision, and retention, on the ground the claims failed to meet
the federal pleading standard. (Doc. 5). Hawes essentially conceded the pleading
deficiencies.
(Doc. 11).
The undersigned denied the defendants’ motion to
dismiss without prejudice and granted Hawes leave to amend her complaint to
address the pleading deficiencies identified by the defendants. (Doc. 27).
In her amended complaint, Hawes asserts claims for negligence,
wantonness, and agency against Bailey and claims for negligent or wanton
entrustment, hiring, training, supervision, and retention, as well as a claim for
respondeat superior, against Carnes Trucking. (Doc. 28). The defendants seek
dismissal of Hawes’ claims for negligent or wanton entrustment, hiring, training,
supervision, and retention on the ground these claims fail to meet the federal
pleading standard. (Doc. 29). Hawes’ agrees these claims are due to be dismissed.
(Doc. 31).
II. Facts
Hawes alleges that on or about January 30, 2017, she was driving a 2010
Dodge Charger northbound in the far right lane of Montgomery Highway,
2
The undersigned denied Hawes’ motion to remand. (Doc. 26).
2
approaching the intersection of Lorna Road and Data Drive in Hoover, Alabama.
(Doc. 28 at ¶ 6). Bailey, a truck driver employed by Carnes Trucking, was driving
a 2016 Freightliner CA125 (the “tractor-trailer”) northbound in the middle lane of
Montgomery Highway, approaching the same intersection. (Id. at ¶ 6). Bailey
made a right turn onto Lorna Road across the right lane, “colliding/sideswiping”
Hawes’ vehicle in the process and knocking it off the road and into the gutter.
(Id.). As a result of the accident, Hawes’ suffered physical and mental injuries for
which she has incurred medical expenses. (Id. at ¶ 10).
In support of her negligent and wanton entrustment claim, Hawes alleges
Carnes Trucking knew or should have known Bailey was not capable of
responsibly operating the tractor-trailer on account of his inexperience and/or
history of negligence. (Id. at ¶ 18). In support of her negligent and wanton hiring,
training, supervision, and retention claim, Hawes alleges Carnes Trucking knew or
should have known Bailey was incompetent and/or inclined to be negligent. (Id. at
¶ 24).
III. Legal Standard
Rule 12(b)(6) must be considered against the backdrop of Rule 8(a)(2) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) “requires only ‘a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to
‘give the defendant fair notice of what the … claim is and the grounds upon which
3
it rests.’” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting
Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). Rule 8 “does not require ‘detailed
factual allegations,’ but it demands more than an unadorned, the defendantunlawfully-harmed me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677 (2009)
(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). “[L]abels and conclusions,” “a formulaic
recitation of the elements of a cause of action,” and “naked assertion[s] devoid of
further factual enhancement” are insufficient. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 557) (internal quotation marks omitted).
To survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim on which relief
may be granted brought pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), “a complaint must contain
sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible
on its face.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). “A
claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows
the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).
“The plausibility standard is not akin to a ‘probability requirement,’ but it asks for
more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Iqbal, 556
U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).
4
IV. Discussion
Under Alabama law, the torts of negligent or wanton entrustment, hiring,
training, supervision, and retention all require a plaintiff to show an employer
knew or should have known its employee was incompetent. Buckentin v. SunTrust
Mortg. Corp., 928 F. Supp. 2d 1273, 1288 (N.D. Ala. 2013) (citing Britt v. USA
Truck, Inc., 2007 WL 455027, *4 (M.D. Ala. 2007) (negligent or wanton
entrustment and negligent hiring, supervision, and retention); Armstrong Bus.
Servs. v. AmSouth Bank, 817 So. 2d 665, 682 (Ala. 2001) (negligent supervision);
Bruck v. Jim Walter Corp., 470 So. 2d 1141, 1144 (Ala. 1985) (negligent or
wanton entrustment); Brown v. Vanity Fair Mills, Inc., 277 So. 2d 893, 895 (1973)
(negligent hiring, retention, and entrustment); Sanders Shoe Show, Inc., 778 So. 2d
820, 824 (Ala. Civ. App. 2000) (negligent or wanton hiring and supervision)).
Hawes’ amended complaint contains no facts to support her allegations Carnes
Trucking knew or should have known Bailey was incompetent, inclined to be
negligent, or not capable of responsibly operating the tractor-trailer or her
allegation Bailey had a history of negligence. Hawes again essentially concedes as
much. (Doc. 31). Hawes has had one opportunity to amend her complaint to
address pleading deficiencies with respect to her claims for negligent or wanton
entrustment, hiring, training, supervision, and retention. (Doc. 27). Because her
amended complaint does not correct these pleading deficiencies, the claims in
5
question are due to be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). See Bush v. J.P.
Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 2016 WL 324993, at *9 (N.D. Ala. Jan. 27, 2016)
(dismissing negligent or wanton training and supervision claims pursuant to Rule
12(b)(6) where amended complaint was devoid of facts regarding what notice
employer had of employees alleged incompetency).
V. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 29) is
GRANTED, and Hawes’ claims for negligent or wanton entrustment, hiring,
training, supervision, and retention are dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Rule
12(b)(6).
DONE this 3rd day of January, 2019.
______________________________
STACI G. CORNELIUS
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?