Downer v. Boyer et al
Filing
59
OPINION and ORDER GRANTING Jeffrey Boyer, Clarks Logistics, LLC's 43 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. on 3/23/17. (jkl)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
QUIKNODDA TYSHAY DOWNER,
Plaintiff,
v.
CIVIL ACTION FILE
NO. 1:15-CV-3734-TWT
JEFFREY BOYER, LP, et al.,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
This is a personal injury case arising out of a motor vehicle collision. It is
before the Court on the Defendants Clark Logistics, LLC and Jeffrey Boyer’s Motion
for Partial Summary Judgment [Doc. 43]. For the reasons stated below, the
Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [Doc. 43] is GRANTED.
I. Background
The Plaintiff Downer is a Georgia resident. The Defendant Clarks is an
interstate motor carrier registered and with its principal place of business in
Oklahoma. The Defendant Boyer was, at the time of the collision, a resident of
Oklahoma and was employed as a driver for Clarks. Boyer first obtained a commercial
T:\ORDERS\15\Downer\partialmsjtwt.wpd
driver’s license in Texas in 2000.1 Boyer then obtained a second commercial driver’s
license in 2004 in Oklahoma, a Class A license that was still valid at the time of the
collision.2 In order to obtain those licenses, Boyer took and passed both written and
driving exams.3 At no time has Boyer ever had his license suspended, nor had any
restrictions placed on his driver’s licenses.4 The only incident on record involving
Boyer prior to this case was a collision involving his personal vehicle while he was
backing out of a driveway, an incident for which Boyer was issued a citation.5
Before he was hired by Clarks, Boyer filled out an application for employment.
Clarks asked Boyer for information about prior accidents or citations, and obtained
both his motor vehicle report and pre-employment screening program report. Clarks
did not see anything on either report which disqualified Boyer from employment.
Clarks also obtained a copy of Boyer’s commercial driver’s license before he was
hired.6
1
Defs.’ Statement of Mat. Facts ¶ 13.
2
Id. at ¶¶ 14-15.
3
Id. at ¶ 16.
4
Id. at ¶¶ 17-18.
5
Id. at ¶¶ 19-21.
6
Id. at ¶¶ 31-35.
T:\ORDERS\15\Downer\partialmsjtwt.wpd
-2-
On June 12, 2015, Boyer was driving a tractor trailer for Clarks on Interstate
285 West, while the Plaintiff was driving a 2015 Hyundai Elantra in the same
direction in the right hand lane.7 The Plaintiff slowed down to allow another vehicle
to merge in front of her. Boyer’s tractor then collided with the rear left side of the
Plaintiff’s car.8 As a result of that collision, the Plaintiff alleges that she suffered
medical injuries. The Plaintiff has alleged four counts against the Defendants,
including: negligence against all Defendants, negligent hiring, training, and
supervision against Clarks, as well as compensatory and punitive damages against all
Defendants. The Defendants Boyer and Clarks now move for summary judgment on
the negligent hiring and punitive damages claims.
II. Legal Standard
Summary judgment is appropriate only when the pleadings, depositions, and
affidavits submitted by the parties show no genuine issue of material fact exists and
that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.9 The court should view the
evidence and any inferences that may be drawn in the light most favorable to the
7
Id. at ¶¶ 1-3.
8
Id. at ¶¶ 7, 11-12.
9
FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a).
T:\ORDERS\15\Downer\partialmsjtwt.wpd
-3-
nonmovant.10 The party seeking summary judgment must first identify grounds to
show the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.11 The burden then shifts to the
nonmovant, who must go beyond the pleadings and present affirmative evidence to
show that a genuine issue of material fact does exist.12 “A mere ‘scintilla’ of evidence
supporting the opposing party’s position will not suffice; there must be a sufficient
showing that the jury could reasonably find for that party.”13
III. Discussion
Under Georgia law, respondeat superior and negligent hiring, training, and
supervision are mutually exclusive theories of liability.14 In order to prevent double
recovery, “when an employer admits the applicability of respondeat superior, it is
[generally] entitled to summary judgment on claims for negligent entrustment, hiring,
and retention.”15 However, a plaintiff can maintain a negligent hiring claim if he “has
a valid claim for punitive damages against the employer based on its independent
10
Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 158-59 (1970).
11
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-24 (1986).
12
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 257 (1986).
13
Walker v. Darby, 911 F.2d 1573, 1577 (11th Cir. 1990).
14
Durben v. American Materials, Inc., 232 Ga. App. 750, 751 (1998).
15
Id. Clarks has admitted respondeat superior liability in this case. See
Defs.’ Mot. for Partial Summ. J., at 9.
T:\ORDERS\15\Downer\partialmsjtwt.wpd
-4-
negligence in hiring and retaining the employee or entrusting a vehicle to such
employee.” Thus, the pertinent question for the Court to address is whether Downer
has a valid basis for punitive damages on her negligent entrustment, hiring, and
retention claims.
Unfortunately for the Plaintiff, she does not. In order to support a claim for
punitive damages, the evidence needs to be “[c]lear and convincing” that a defendant
acted in such a way as to demonstrate “willful misconduct, malice, fraud, wantonness,
oppression, or that entire want of care which would raise the presumption of conscious
indifference to consequences.”16 In other words, punitive damages are only awarded
in truly egregious cases of misconduct.
There is no evidence to suggest Clarks acted in such a way.17 There is no
evidence that Boyer had a prior history of misconduct on the road. The only collision
he had ever been in prior to this case involved his personal vehicle while he was
pulling out of a driveway. Boyer had a commercial driver’s license, and nothing in his
background reports suggested he was not a capable driver. Even assuming arguendo
16
O.C.G.A. § 51-12-5.1(b).
17
Downer never submitted a response to the Defendants’ Statement of
Material Facts, nor did she file a Statement of Additional Material Facts. Pursuant to
L.R. 56.1(B), the facts contained in the Defendants’ Statement of Material Facts are
deemed admitted, and neither party contends that there are any disputed material
issues of fact.
T:\ORDERS\15\Downer\partialmsjtwt.wpd
-5-
that Clarks was negligent in its hiring, training, supervision, or lack thereof,
“[n]egligence, even gross negligence, is insufficient to support” an award for punitive
damages. The Plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages must be dismissed.18 Likewise,
because the Plaintiff cannot show a valid basis for punitive damages, and because the
Defendants have admitted respondeat superior liability, the Plaintiff’s claim against
the Defendant Clarks for negligent hiring, training, and supervision should also be
dismissed.
IV. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment [Doc. 43] is GRANTED.
SO ORDERED, this 23 day of March, 2017.
/s/Thomas W. Thrash
THOMAS W. THRASH, JR.
United States District Judge
18
Durben, 232 Ga. App. at 751 (citations and quotations omitted).
T:\ORDERS\15\Downer\partialmsjtwt.wpd
-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?