Mason v. Dunn et al

Filing 90

OPINION & ORDER by Magistrate Judge Kimberly E. West granting Defendant Schneider National Carriers, Inc.'s 21 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.(adw, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
RICHARD A. MASON,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
MAURITA T. DUNN;
SCHNEIDER NATIONAL
CARRIERS, INC.; and
LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Defendants.

Case No. CIV-14-282-KEW

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Schneider
National Carriers, Inc.’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on
the Issues of Negligent Hiring, Training and Supervision (Docket
Entry #21).

On October 11, 2011, Plaintiff was involved in a

traffic accident with a tractor trailer driven by Defendant Maurita
T.

Dunn

(“Dunn”),

owned

and

operated

by

Defendant

Schneider

National Carriers, Inc. (“Schneider”), and insured by Defendant
Liberty Mutual Insurance Company.

In his Petition removed to this

Court on July 14, 2014, Plaintiff alleges the accident was as a
result of Dunn’s negligence.

In the Amended Complaint filed after

the removal of the case to this Court on October 14, 2014,
Plaintiff also brought claims against Schneider for failing to
properly train, screen, and supervise Dunn giving rise to a claim
of negligence. Plaintiff expressly states in the Amended Complaint
that Dunn acted within the scope and course of his employment with

Schneider and that Plaintiff’s claims against Schneider are brought
against Schneider “as the employer of Defendant Dunn.”
In its answer to the Amended Complaint, Schneider admitted
that Dunn was acting within the course and scope of his employment
at the time of the accident.

In so doing, Schneider stipulated to

the potential respondeat superior liability for Dunn’s conduct
while in its employ.
Under Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
summary judgment is appropriate "if the pleadings, depositions,
answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with
the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to
any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment
as a matter of law."

Universal Money Centers v. A.T. & T., 22 F.3d

1527, 1529 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1052, 115 S.Ct. 655,
130 L.Ed.2d 558 (1994).

The moving party bears the initial burden

of showing that there is an absence of any issues of material fact.
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 255354, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986).

A genuine issue of material fact exists

when "there is sufficient evidence favoring the nonmoving party for
a jury to return a verdict for that party."

Anderson v. Liberty

Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2510-11, 91 L.Ed 2d
202 (1986).

In determining whether a genuine issue of a material

fact exists, the evidence is to be taken in the light most favorable
to the nonmoving party.

Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144,

2

157, 90 S.Ct. 1598, 1608, 26 L.Ed.2d 142 (1970).

Once the moving

party has met its burden, the opposing party must come forward with
specific evidence, not mere allegations or denials of the pleadings,
which demonstrates that there is a genuine issue for trial. Applied
Genetics v. Fist Affiliated Securities, 912 F.2d 1238, 1241 (10th
Cir. 1990); Posey v. Skyline Corp., 702 F.2d 102, 105 (7th Cir.
1983).

With regard to the material facts set forth above, this

Court finds no significant dispute.

By virtue of the pending Motion, Schneider contends the
Oklahoma Supreme Court has not permitted claims for negligent
hiring, supervision, and retention to proceed to trial in the
circumstance where an employer has admitted vicarious liability.
In support of this proposition, Schneider cites to the seminal case
of Jordan v. Cates, 935 P.2d 289 (Okla. 1997).

In Jordan, an

individual who went to a convenience store to pay off a returned
check.

Id. at 291.

During the course of an alleged altercation

with an employee of the store, the individual contended the
employee assaulted and battered him.

Id.

He brought suit against

the convenience store, as the employer of the offending employee,
under the theory of respondeat superior liability for the negligent
hiring and retention of the employee.
Recognizing

the

required

Id.

elements

to

confer

respondeat

superior liability, the employer stipulated that the altercation
occurred while its employee was acting within the course and scope

3

of his employment and that it would be liable for any damages
awarded by a jury.

Id. at 292.

As a result, the trial court

granted the employer summary judgment, dismissing the claims of
negligent

hiring

and

retention,

in

light

of

the

employer’s

admission that it’s employee was acting within the scope of his
employment during the altercation.

Id.

The Oklahoma Supreme Court reviewed the controlling prior case
authority and concluded
that the theory of negligent hiring and retention is
available in a nonvicarious liability case or in a case
where vicarious liability has not been established. In
the case at bar, vicarious liability has been established
through stipulation.
* * *
Our holding today is limited to those situations where
the employer stipulates that liability, if any, would be
under the respondeat superior doctrine, thereby making
any other theory for imposing liability on the employer
unnecessary and superfluous. Because vicarious liability
can include liability for punitive damages, the theory of
negligent hiring and retention imposes no further
liability on employer.
Id. at 293 (emphasis in original).
The same court recognized this legal limitation in the later
case of N.H., a minor v. Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), 998 P.2d
592,

600

(Okla.

1999)(“In

Oklahoma,

the

theory

of

recovery

[employer negligence] is available if vicarious liability is not
established.”)

The defendant church did not admit vicarious

liability in that case, however, causing the court to also consider
whether the defendant church was put on sufficient notice of the
4

propensity for its employee to molest so as to confer liability
upon the church.

The law appears clearly established in Oklahoma

that once an employer, such as Defendant Schneider in this case,
has admitted vicarious liability for its employee’s actions, no
further

theory

of

negligence

associated

with

the

particular

incident may be maintained against the employer.
Plaintiff attempts to circumvent the holding in Jordan on
multiple fronts.

He refers to the affidavit of Major Larry Owen,

a retired Oklahoma Highway Patrol trooper to allegedly establish a
claim for negligent training. In Plaintiff’s supplemental briefing
which this Court permitted, he also offers the report of John
Glennon, Jr., an alleged trucking safety expert, to establish
various transgressions and violations of the standard for safe
trucking operation which Defendants ostensibly committed in the
course of their actions leading up to the accident.

None of these

factual assertions, however, have any bearing upon the legal
conclusion that Oklahoma law does not recognize the attendant
negligence

causes

of

action

against

Schneider

once

vicarious

liability is admitted - the only material fact which is relevant to
the issue asserted in Schneider’s partial summary judgment action.
Plaintiff also asserts that Defendants violated the Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, again referring to Mr. Glennon’s
opinion. As a result, Plaintiff contends this federal law preempts

5

the state law ruling in Jordan. Plaintiff ignores the fact that no
private right of action exists under the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations which could preempt any state rule of law - nor
for that matter has Plaintiff asserted any claim based in federal
law in this action.

See Beavers v. Victorian, 38 F.Supp.3d 1260,

1267 (W.D. Okla. 2014).
to this case.

Consequently, preemption has no relevancy

None of these arguments alter the Jordan rationale.

Such claims remain barred by the admission of vicarious liability
by Schneider.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant Schneider National
Carriers, Inc.’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on the Issues
of Negligent Hiring, Training and Supervision (Docket Entry #21) is
hereby GRANTED. As a result, Plaintiff’s claims for negligence and
negligence

per

se

associated

with

the

hiring,

training,

supervision, retention, and policies and procedures established by
Schneider are hereby DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 28th day of September, 2015.

______________________________
KIMBERLY E. WEST
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

6