Driver et al v. D. Mosley Trucking, Inc. et al
Filing
196
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 186 Report and Recommendations; granting 167 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; granting 160 Motion to Quash. Signed by Honorable Susan O. Hickey on April 23, 2015. (mll)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
LOIS DRIVER, et al
VS.
PLAINTIFFS
CASE NO. 4:13-cv-4074
D. MOSLEY TRUCKING, INC.,
et al
DEFENDANTS
ORDER
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation filed April 8, 2015 by the Honorable
Barry A. Bryant, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. (ECF No.
186).
Judge Bryant recommends that Defendant New Millennium Building Systems, LLC’s
(“NMBS”) Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 167) be granted. Plaintiffs have filed
objections to the Report and Recommendation. (ECF Nos. 187-188).
This case revolves around an 18 wheeler tractor trailer accident. The tractor trailer was
driven by Defendant Ramon Colon, an employee of Defendant D. Mosley Trucking, and the tractor
trailer was loaded with steel construction beams (joists) by employees of Defendant NMBS.
Plaintiffs allege that NMBS is liable for this accident due to its negligence in loading the joists.
Plaintiffs have requested punitive damages, and NMBS has filed the present Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment arguing that Plaintiffs have not provided sufficient evidence to sustain their
punitive damages claim.
In his Report and Recommendation, Judge Bryant correctly noted that “punitive damages
may be awarded [only] when a tortfeasor has acted with malice, intent to cause injury, or with
conscious indifference such that malice could be inferred.” Yeakley v. Doss, 370 Ark. 122, 128, 257
S.W.3d 895, 899 (Ark. 2007). Applying this standard, Judge Bryant concluded that, while NMBS’s
1
actions “may” have caused Plaintiffs’ injuries, Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that NMBS
acted with malice or conscious indifference to others such that malice can be inferred. Specifically,
Judge Bryant considered Plaintiffs’ arguments that (1) NMBS knew that the load in question was
precariously leaning before letting it leave the facility and (2) that NMBS did not follow its standard
operating procedure in regards to placing dunnage between the joist layers for stabilization.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, Judge Bryant concluded that these
allegations may show negligence on the part of NMBS, but not malice or conscious indifference.
In their objections to the Report and Recommendation, Plaintiffs repeat the arguments
contained in their summary judgment briefing. Judge Bryant thoroughly addressed these issues, and
the Court finds no need to repeat that analysis here. Upon de novo review of the Report and
Recommendation, the Court finds no error in Judge Bryant’s analysis. Accordingly, the Court
overrules Plaintiffs’ objections and adopts Judge Bryant’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No.
186). For the reasons stated herein and above, as well as those contained in the Report and
Recommendation, Defendant NMBS’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 167)
should be and hereby is GRANTED.
In light of the Court’s ruling on the punitive damages claim, the Court finds that NMBS’s
Motion to Quash Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Notice of Intent to Take Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition
(ECF No. 160) should be and hereby is GRANTED. 1
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 23rd day of April, 2015.
/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
United States District Judge
1
NMBS’s motion asks the Court to quash Plaintiff Lois and Robert Driver’s deposition notice for an NMBS
representative with knowledge of NMBS’s net worth. Information on a defendant’s net worth is necessary to sustain a
claim for punitive damages. Because the Court has granted summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ punitive damages claim
against NMBS, NMBS’s net worth is no longer relevant.
2
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?