Gaytan Soto v. Swift Transportation Services, LLC

Background

This diversity personal-injury case arose from a November 15, 2016 accident on Interstate 90 near Luverne, Minnesota. Anthony Shealey was driving a semi truck for Swift Transportation Company of Arizona, LLC (STC) when he moved left to avoid six deer. The truck’s tires went onto the grassy median, and the tractor-trailer overturned after Shealey steered back toward the roadway. Ricardo Soto’s sedan later collided with the underside of the overturned trailer.

The Sotos asserted negligence claims against Shealey and direct-negligence claims against STC. They also asserted a claim that STC was vicariously liable for Shealey’s negligence. The motion addressed only Count II, the direct-negligence claim against STC, which included negligent hiring, retention, selection, supervision, training, and entrustment.

The record included evidence that Shealey had prior speed and hours-of-service violations during an earlier period working for STC, received a speeding ticket in 2016, and had a critical event recorded during his training. STC also maintained restrictions and controls over Shealey’s work and equipment, including speed restrictions, electronic monitoring, and the authority to take possession of the equipment in some circumstances. STC’s handbook addressed deer-related crashes and warned drivers never to swerve, but the opinion stated that it was unclear whether STC required drivers to read the handbook or maintained a process to ensure their familiarity with it.

Legal standard

The court applied the summary-judgment standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine dispute about a material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court viewed the evidence in the light most favorable to the Sotos.

The court also addressed whether Shealey was an employee or an independent contractor. Based on STC’s control over his work and equipment, the court concluded that a reasonable jury could find that he was an employee. Because the evidence was not conclusive, the court evaluated the claims on the assumption that a jury could find either status.

Rulings on the claims

Negligent hiring and retention. Under the Minnesota law discussed in the opinion, these claims impose direct liability on an employer for an employee’s intentional torts. Because the Sotos neither alleged nor presented evidence that Shealey committed an intentional tort, the court granted STC’s motion for summary judgment on negligent hiring and negligent retention and dismissed those claims against STC.

Negligent training. The court stated that Minnesota law does not recognize negligent training as a cause of action. It therefore granted STC’s motion on the negligent-training claim.

Negligent selection. The Minnesota Supreme Court had not expressly adopted negligent selection. Applying the state-law principles used by federal courts in diversity cases, the court concluded that the Minnesota Supreme Court would recognize negligent selection of an independent contractor and incorporate Section 411 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts into Minnesota common law. The court found evidence from which a jury could determine that STC failed to use reasonable care in selecting Shealey, so it denied STC’s motion for summary judgment on this claim.

Negligent supervision. The court found sufficient evidence for a jury to determine whether STC failed to use ordinary care to prevent foreseeable misconduct and whether STC retained detailed control over Shealey’s performance. It therefore denied STC’s motion for summary judgment on negligent supervision.

Negligent entrustment. Assuming Shealey was negligent, the court found evidence from which a jury could determine that his negligence was reasonably foreseeable to STC and that STC failed to take steps to prevent him from operating the truck. The court denied STC’s motion for summary judgment on negligent entrustment.

Disposition

The order states that the defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment was GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. It was granted as to negligent hiring, negligent retention, and negligent training, and denied as to negligent selection, negligent supervision, and negligent entrustment. The court placed the case on the next available trial calendar.