Replogle v. Shoreline Transportation of Alabama, LLC et al

Filing 116

ORDER granting Defendant Xtra Lease, LLC's 47 Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissing said Defendant from this matter. A separate Judgment shall be entered as to Defendant Xtra Lease, LLC only. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on March 20, 2013 (dsl)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
JACKSON DIVISION
ROSEMARY REPLOGLE

PLAINTIFF

v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:11-CV-83-KS-MTP

SHORELINE TRANSPORTATION
OF ALABAMA, LLC, et al.

DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
For the reasons stated below, the Court grants the Motion for Summary
Judgment [47] filed by Defendant Xtra Lease, LLC.
I. BACKGROUND
On October 26, 2010, an accident stopped traffic on I-55 near McComb,
Mississippi. David Replogle sat in his vehicle, waiting behind a tractor-trailer owned
by Defendant D&G Transportation, Inc. A pickup truck owned and operated by a third
party sat directly behind him. As Replogle waited, a tractor-trailer operated by
Kenneth L. Boudreaux collided with the pickup truck behind him. The truck struck the
rear of Replogle’s vehicle and pinned it under D&G’s tractor-trailer. Replogle’s vehicle
exploded, and he died.
Boudreaux was employed by Defendant Shoreline Transportation of Alabama,
LLC, and Shoreline owned his truck. Boudreaux was hauling a trailer that Shoreline
had leased from Defendant Xtra Lease, LLC. Plaintiffs named Shoreline, Xtra Lease,
and D&G as Defendants in this wrongful death suit. Xtra Lease filed a Motion for
Summary Judgment [47], arguing that it can not be vicariously liable for Boudreaux’s

actions based on its leasing a trailer to his employer, and that the Graves Amendment1
precludes Plaintiffs’ claims against it. Plaintiffs invoked Rule 56(d), and the Court
deferred consideration of the motion until the parties had conducted discovery. The
motion is now fully briefed and ready for review.
II. DISCUSSION
Rule 56 provides that “[t]he court shall grant summary judgment if the movant
shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a); see also Sierra Club, Inc.
v. Sandy Creek Energy Assocs., L.P., 627 F.3d 134, 138 (5th Cir. 2010). “Where the
burden of production at trial ultimately rests on the nonmovant, the movant must
merely demonstrate an absence of evidentiary support in the record for the
nonmovant’s case.” Cuadra v. Houston Indep. Sch. Dist., 626 F.3d 808, 812 (5th Cir.
2010) (punctuation omitted). The nonmovant “must come forward with specific facts
showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Id. (punctuation omitted).
The Court is not permitted to make credibility determinations or weigh the
evidence. Deville v. Marcantel, 567 F.3d 156, 164 (5th Cir. 2009). When deciding
whether a genuine fact issue exists, “the court must view the facts and the inference
to be drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Sierra
Club, Inc., 627 F.3d at 138. “Conclusional allegations and denials, speculation,
improbable inferences, unsubstantiated assertions, and legalistic argumentation do not

1

49 U.S.C. § 30106.
2

adequately substitute for specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial.” Oliver v.
Scott, 276 F.3d 736, 744 (5th Cir. 2002).
It is undisputed that Xtra Lease is not vicariously liable for Boudreaux’s actions.
The record contains no evidence that Boudreaux was Xtra Lease’s employee, agent, or
partner, or that they were engaged in a joint venture. If Xtra Lease has any liability
for Replogle’s death, it must arise from its own actions. Plaintiffs argue that Xtra
Lease committed independent acts of negligence, including the negligent entrustment
of its trailer to Shoreline and Boudreaux. The parties discussed several issues related
to these allegations, but it is only necessary for the Court to address one of them:
Plaintiffs’ failure to present any evidence that Xtra Lease’s allegedly negligent actions
caused or contributed to the subject accident or David Replogle’s death. See Caves v.
Yarbrough, 991 So. 2d 142, 147 (Miss. 2008) (“. . . absent any damage or harm
proximately caused by the breach, there is no tort and the breach is not actionable.”).
To prove a claim of negligent entrustment, a plaintiff must prove that the
instrument entrusted to the third party by the defendant caused the harm of which the
plaintiff complains. See Sligh v. First Nat’l Bank of Holmes Cnty., 735 So. 2d 963 (Miss.
1999) (citing RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 390 (1965)); Bullock Bros. Trucking
Co. v. Carley, 930 So. 2d 1259, 1261-62 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005). Even the simplest
negligence claim requires proof that the defendant’s breach of duty caused the
plaintiff’s damages. McKee v. Bowers Window & Door Co., 64 So. 3d 926, 940 (Miss.
2011). Plaintiffs failed to present any evidence that Xtra Lease’s actions or the trailer
itself caused or contributed to the subject accident or David Replogle’s death. Without
3

evidence of a causal connection, Plaintiff’s clams against Xtra Lease fail.
III. CONCLUSION
For these reasons, the Court grants the Motion for Summary Judgment [47]
filed by Defendant Xtra Lease, LLC.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this 20th day of March, 2013.
s/Keith Starrett
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4