Hills v. Pilot Corporation et al
MEMORANDUM DECISION and ORDER granting 18 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting in part and denying in part 19 Motion to Amend/Correct Complaint. Signed by Judge Dee Benson on 3/13/2017. (blh)
wJ1 13 a 2: 3 \
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
LJ i • - ..-------·-··------··h··~~---~-------,.-
r - -/ \·_: t_E~=~ i·\
RONALD EARL HILLS, an individual,
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
PILOT CORPORATION, a Tennessee
corporation, and EP ENERGY E&P
COMP ANY L.P ., a Delaware corporation,
Case No. 2:16-cv-934
Judge Dee V. Benson
Before the Court are Defendant, Pilot Corporation's ("Pilot") Motion for Summary
Judgment [Dkt. 18] and Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint [Dkt. 19].
The summary judgment motion has been fully briefed. The motion to amend the Complaint has
not been responded to by Defendants and the time for responding has passed. Neither party
requested oral argument on either motion. Having considered the written arguments of the
parties and based on the relevant facts and law, the Court hereby enters the following Order.
Plaintiff, a former semi-trnck driver for H & H, brought this suit alleging one count of
negligence against Pilot Corporation and EP Energy E&P Company ("EP Energy"). He seeks
damages for injuries he sustained when he fell from the top of the tank his truck was hauling.
The undisputed facts establish that H & H entered into an equipment lease and independent
contractor agreement with Flying J on April I, 2008, to lease tank trailers. In 2010, Flying J was
acquired by Pilot Travel Centers which is owned by Pilot Corporation.
Plaintiff began working for H & Hin 2012. His job was to drive to various locations to
collect oil and then deliver the oil to the Big West Refinery in North Salt Lake, Utah. On August
24, 2012 at 3:00 am, Plaintiff was on his route in Duchesne, Utah loading oil from a site owned
by Defendant EP Energy. The Complaint alleges that this particular site had no bottom-loading
option so oil had to be loaded from the top of the trailer. Plaintiff climbed on top of the trailer,
opened the dome lid, attached the load hose to the pipe and started to release the oil. As he
attempted to adjust the hose, he slipped and fell twelve feet to the ground, sustaining personal
PILOT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Summary Judgment is proper where there is no genuine issue of material fact for
detennination, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter oflaw." Durham v.
Herbert Olbrich GMBH & Co., 404 F.3d 1249, 1250 (10th Cir. 2005). When addressing a
summary judgment motion, the court is required to "view the facts and draw reasonable
inferences in the light most favorable to the party opposing the summary judgment. " Cavanaugh
v. Woods Cross City, 625 F.3d 661, 662 (10th Cir. 2010).
Pilot Corporation contends that, as a separate entity from Pilot Travel Centers, it is not a
party to the contract with H & H, and therefore owed no duty to Plaintiff. Accordingly, it alleges
it is not a proper defendant in this case.
To establish a claim for negligence, a plaintiff must prove four essential elements: (1) the
defendant owed the plaintiff a duty; (2) the defendant breached that duty; (3) the breach of duty
was the proximate cause of the plaintiffs injury; and (4) the plaintiff suffered injuries or
damages. Webb v. University of Utah, 125 P.3d 906 (Utah 2005). "A plaintiff must show, as a
threshold matter, that the defendant owed him a duty." Ferree v. State, 784 P.2d 149, 151 (Utah
The duty that Plaintiff alleges Pilot Corporation owed him arises out of his allegation that
Pilot Corporation owned the trailer that Plaintiff was hauling at the time of the accident. The
undisputed facts, however, establish that Pilot Corporation does not and did not own the trailer.
Pilot Corporation is not a party to the contractual lease agreement between Flying J and H & H.
Flying J was acquired by Pilot Travel Centers in 2010. While Pilot Corporation owns Pilot
Travel Centers, the companies are separate entities. In August of 2012, Pilot Travel Centers
leased the trailer at issue to H & H through its subsidiary, Flying J.
The Court finds that, based on the undisputed facts in the record, Plaintiff has not
established that Pilot Corporation owed any duty to Plaintiff that could make it liable for
negligence under the facts alleged. Accordingly, the Court finds that Pilot Corporation is not
proper defendant and should be dismissed without prejudice from this case. 1
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs motion for leave to amend the Complaint seeks to add Pilot Travel Centers and
Flying J Corp. as defendants pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 15(a) and 20(a). The
proposed Amended Complaint includes Pilot Corporation as a named defendant but does not
allege that it owned the trailer. Rather, it alleges that Pilot Corporation's liability is based soley
on its status as the parent company of Pilot Travel Centers and that the two companies share the
same business address and have officers and directors in common. It does not, however, allege
any specific facts that would give rise to an independent duty owed by Pilot Corporation to
Plaintiff in this case.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), leave to amend pleadings should be freely
given "when justice so requires." In determining whether leave to amend should be granted,
courts consider the presence of undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive, repeated failure to cure
deficiencies by previous amendments, undue prejudice to the opposing party and futility of the
proposed amendment. See Farnan v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); Frank v. U.S. West, Inc.,
3 F.2d 1357, 1365 (10th Cir. 1993). The Court finds none of those factors here with regard to
Pilot Travel Centers or Flying J Corp. This is Plaintiffs first request to amend his Complaint
and it is timely made.
u: during the course of discovery in this matter, Plaintiff discovers facts that would
establish that Pilot Corporation owed him a duty independent of ownership of the trailer, the
Court will entertain a motion by Plaintiff to amend the Complaint to add Pilot Corporation as a
defendant at that point.
Rule 20(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a plaintiff to join a person as a
defendant if the liability between the new and existing defendants would be joint or several; or in
the alternative, if the plaintiffs right to relief against the new defendant arises out of the same
transaction or occurrence "and if any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise
in the action." Fed.R.Civ.P. 20(a)(2)(A) & (B). Plaintiffs allegations against Pilot Travel
Centers and Flying J Corp. arise out of the same incident on August 24, 2012 as those against EP
Energy. The allegations against these companies involve common questions of law and fact.
Accordingly, the Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiffs motion for leave to amend his
Complaint to add Pilot Travel Centers and Flying J Transportation as defendants. Because the
proposed Amended Complaint fails to assert any facts that would support a duty owed to Plaintiff
by Pilot Corporation, the motion is DENIED with respect to including Pilot Corporation as a
Defendant Pilot Corporation's Motion for Summary Judgment is hereby GRANTED
without prejudice. Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint is hereby GRANTED
in PART and DENIED in PART.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this~ day of March, 2017.
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?