Hanby et al v. Dodson Trucking et al

Filing 46

ORDER granting in part and denying in part defendants' 28 motion for summary judgment; the motion is granted to the extent of dismissing all claims against "Dodson Trucking"; the motion is otherwise denied. Signed by Honorable Joe Heaton on 3/8/2019. (cla)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
PAUL HANBY, et al.
Plaintiffs,
vs.
DODSON TRUCKING, et al.
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

NO. CIV-17-1137-HE

ORDER
Plaintiffs Paul and Maureen Hanby brought this action seeking to recover for
injuries they suffered in a motor vehicle accident. They named as defendants Dodson
Trucking and David Dodson. Their complaint asserts negligence claims based on multiple
theories.
Defendant David Dodson has moved for summary judgment on the basis that
“Dodson Trucking” is not a separate entity and that, as to the claims against him, there is
no evidence of his negligence.
Summary judgment is warranted “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). Material facts are those which “might affect the outcome of the suit
under the governing law.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A
dispute is genuine “if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for
the nonmoving party.” Id. To determine whether this standard is met, the court views the
evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Estate of Booker v. Gomez,
745 F.3d 405, 411 (10th Cir. 2014). “[T]he plain language of Rule 56(c) mandates entry

of summary judgment . . . against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish
the existence of an element essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will bear
the burden of proof at trial.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986).
Applying this standard to the parties’ submissions, the court concludes defendant’s
motion should be granted as to any claims against “Dodson Trucking” but otherwise
denied.
Factual background
The general circumstances giving rise to plaintiffs’ claims are undisputed. Plaintiffs
were traveling on their motorcycle on Interstate 40 in western Oklahoma when they
encountered a heavy rainstorm. Defendant Dodson was driving his semitractor-trailer on
the same stretch of Interstate 40. When the rainstorm was encountered, plaintiffs were
traveling with other motorcycle riders in the outer or right hand lane of the highway. Mr.
Dodson’s vehicle was traveling in the same direction, in the same lane, several vehicles
behind the plaintiffs. At some point, Mr. Dodson shifted to the center, passing lane and
passed the plaintiffs. During that time, plaintiffs’ motorcycle and the trailer collided,
throwing plaintiffs onto the road and causing the motorcycle to become attached to the
trailer. Mr. Dodson did not immediately notice the attached motorcycle, but eventually did
and stopped his vehicle. The plaintiffs suffered multiple injuries from the collision but
fortunately survived.
Analysis
Mr. Dodson seeks summary judgment as to all claims.

2

As to the claims against “Dodson Trucking,” Mr. Dodson seeks judgment on the
basis that “Dodson Trucking” is only a business name for him, a sole proprietor, and there
is no other or separate entity of “Dodson Trucking.” Plaintiffs do not controvert any of the
evidence as to the status of Dodson Trucking, but instead make a somewhat convoluted
argument that the claims against Dodson Trucking can’t be formally resolved now because
Dodson Trucking hasn’t moved for summary judgment. Given the undisputed fact that
Dodson Trucking does not even exist as a separate entity, there is no need to wait for a
separate motion from the non-existent entity. In any event, as there is no dispute as to the
non-existence of “Dodson Trucking” as a legal entity, all claims nominally against it will
be dismissed.
Mr. Dodson also seeks summary judgment as to the negligence claim against him.
He contends there is no evidence which would support a non-speculative inference of his
negligence. The court concludes otherwise. While there is apparently no eyewitness who
can explain exactly how the accident occurred, there is evidence that the back of Mr.
Dodson’s trailer at some point swung into the right-hand lane plaintiffs occupied. There is
evidence which would support inferences that Mr. Dobson was driving aggressively, was
initially following too close given the conditions, and that his attempt to pass was
unreasonable in light of the weather conditions. There is also evidence via the investigating
highway patrolman that Mr. Dodson told him it was “possible” that his trailer had swung
into the plaintiffs’ lane. Viewing this evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, the

3

evidence is sufficient to create a dispute of material fact which precludes summary
judgment on the negligence claim. 1
Mr. Dodson also seeks summary judgment as to plaintiffs’ request for punitive
damages even if the court declines to grant summary judgment as to the negligence claim
itself. That poses a considerably closer question.
As defendant correctly notes, a request for punitive damages is not a separate
“claim” but it is subject to a different standard of proof. Under Oklahoma law, which all
parties concede governs the question, a plaintiff must establish a basis for punitive damages
by showing at least reckless disregard for the rights of others and must do so by “clear and
convincing evidence.” 23 Okla. Stat. § 9.1(A)-(C). The “clear and convincing” standard
requires plaintiffs to produce a more compelling quantum of proof to create a justiciable
issue as to punitive damages, and it is less than obvious that they have done so here.

Even

plaintiffs’ own evidence indicates that Mr. Dobson passed the motorcycles while moving
relatively slowly; he was apparently moving only a few miles per hour faster than the
motorcycles and was traveling well under the usual speed limit.

He did not stop

immediately, but there is no apparent reason to disbelieve his explanation that he didn’t
immediately know of the collision with the motorcycle, given the relatively minor impact
of the collision (to the trailer, not the motorcycle), the impact of the weather conditions on

1

In light of this conclusion, it is unnecessary to resolve whether plaintiffs’ theories based
on negligence per se might also be a basis for avoiding summary judgment. The court notes,
however, that none of the laws or regulations upon which plaintiffs rely appear to involve any
standard or issue that differs from the basic question presented by the simple negligence claim.

4

visibility, and the surrounding circumstances. However, the evidence of the severity of the
weather conditions also potentially supports an inference that any effort to pass was
unreasonable under the circumstances, a view apparently held, emphatically, by one of the
organizers of the motorcycle trip. In any event, the court concludes for present purposes,
drawing all inferences in favor of the plaintiffs, that the evidence is sufficient — barely —
to avoid summary judgment as to the punitive damages request. 2
Conclusion
For the above reasons, defendants’ motion for summary judgment [Doc. #28] is
GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The motion is GRANTED to the
extent of dismissing all claims against “Dodson Trucking.” The motion is otherwise
DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 8th day of March, 2019.

2

This determination does not preclude a Rule 50 motion directed to the issue at the close
of trial, if otherwise warranted.

5