Whitmore et al v. American Dream Logistics, Inc. et al

Filing 66

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants motion for summary judgment # 61 is granted, and plaintiffs claims against defendant Penske Truck Leasing Co., L.P. only are dismissed. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 9/6/2012. (RAK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
LUTHER WHITMORE, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
AMERICAN DREAM LOGISTICS,
INC., et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:11CV1170 RWS

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
On December 8, 2010, Michael Whitmore was moving his disabled vehicle to the side of
the road when he was struck and killed by a tractor trailer. The tractor was leased by Penske to
American Dream Logistics and driven by Gabriel Forsyte. Plaintiffs are the surviving parents
and child of Whitmore and allege that Penske negligently entrusted its tractor to Forsyte,
resulting in Whitmore’s death. Penske moves for summary judgment on the ground that the
Graves Amendment, 49 U.S.C. § 30106, precludes plaintiffs’ claims as a matter of law. For the
reasons that follow, the motion will be granted.
Standards Governing Summary Judgment
“Summary judgment is proper ‘if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on
file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the
movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’” Torgerson v. City of Rochester, 643 F.3d
1031, 1042 (8th Cir. 2011) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(2)). The movant “bears the initial
responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion,” and must identify “those
portions of [the record] ... which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of

material fact.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). “If the movant does so, the
nonmovant must respond by submitting evidentiary materials that set out specific facts showing
that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Torgerson, 643 F.3d at 1042 (internal quotation marks and
citations omitted). “On a motion for summary judgment, facts must be viewed in the light most
favorable to the nonmoving party only if there is a genuine dispute as to those facts.” Id.
(internal quotation marks and citations omitted). “Credibility determinations, the weighing of the
evidence, and the drawing of legitimate inferences from the facts are jury functions, not those of
a judge.” Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 150 (2000), (quoting
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986)). The nonmovant “must do more
than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts,” and must come
forward with “specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Matsushita Elec.
Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586–87 (1986). “Where the record taken as a
whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party, there is no genuine
issue for trial.” Torgerson, 643 F.3d at 1042 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) .
Discussion
Penske is in the business of leasing trucks and rented a tractor to American Dream
Logistics on December 2, 2010. The one-page lease agreement states at the top: “Driver Trip
Record Required. Failure to complete and return the DTR (Driver Trip Record) will result in a
charge for the determined tax liability.” Plaintiffs allege that, after the accident, Forsyte was
cited for violating federal trip record-keeping related regulations. Plaintiffs further allege that
Penske failed to enforce its policy of collecting the DTR and, had it done so, it would have
discovered Forsyte’s “record keeping lapses and violations of the 11 and 14 hour rules . . . which
-2-

resulted in the death of” Whitmore. According to plaintiffs, it is “Penske’s omission to enforce
its own policy to collect Forsyte’s Trip Records [which] exposes it to liability for negligent
entrustment under Missouri law.”
The Graves Amendment, 49 U.S.C. § 30106(a), provides as follows:
An owner of a motor vehicle that rents or leases the vehicle to a person (or an
affiliate of the owner) shall not be liable under the law of any State or political
subdivision thereof, by reason of being the owner of the vehicle (or an affiliate of
the owner), for harm to persons or property that results or arises out of the use,
operation, or possession of the vehicle during the period of the rental or lease, if(1) the owner (or an affiliate of the owner) is engaged in the trade or business of
renting or leasing motor vehicles; and
(2) there is no negligence or criminal wrongdoing on the part of the owner (or an
affiliate of the owner).
Id. “Although the Graves Amendment prohibits vicarious liability claims against owners of
leased vehicles, the Graves Amendment contains a savings clause which allows an owner of a
leased vehicle to be found directly liable for the owner’s negligence or criminal wrongdoing.”
Carton v. General Motor Acceptance Corp., 611 F.3d 451, 456 -457 (8th Cir. 2010) (internal
citation omitted). The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals “find[s] no statutory basis for narrowing
the definition of the broad term ‘negligence’ [as used in the Graves Amendment] or giving it any
definition other than its ordinary meaning.” Id. (internal citation omitted).
The question in this case then becomes whether Missouri courts would recognize a cause
of action based on a lessor’s alleged negligent failure to collect DTRs. See id. at 458. Plaintiffs
rely on the language contained in the one-page rental agreement in support of their theory.
However, “[u]nder Missouri law, a breach of contract alone does not give rise to a tort.” Pippin
v. Hill-Rom Co., Inc., 615 F.3d 886, 889 (8th Cir. 2010). “If absent a contract the act would not
-3-

be a tort, the mere breach of an agreement will not make it one.” Id. at 889-90 (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted). Here, plaintiffs have failed to point to any legal authority imposing
a duty on Penske to collect and/or monitor Forsyte’s DTRs. Even the rental agreement language
does not support plaintiffs’ claims as it does not impose any duty on Penske to collect driver
logs; at most, it requires American Dream Logistics to provide them. Moreover, it does not
require Penske to monitor these DTRs for drivers’ compliance with the 11 and 14 hour rules and
other federal regulations. Instead, the stated purpose for providing the DTRs was for
determination of tax liabilities. Because plaintiffs have come forward with no legal authority
imposing a duty on Penske to collect and monitor driver trip records for compliance with federal
regulations, plaintiffs’ negligence claim against Penske is barred by the Graves Amendment. See
Carton, 611 F.3d at 459. Therefore, summary judgment in favor of Penske will be granted.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant’s motion for summary judgment [#61] is
granted, and plaintiffs’ claims against defendant Penske Truck Leasing Co., L.P. only are
dismissed.

RODNEY W. SIPPEL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated this 6th day of September, 2012.

-4-