Judge to weigh adding multiple defendants in deadly box-truck crash; parties disagree on scope of joinder

Plaintiffs seeking damages after a fatal October 2023 box-truck crash asked Clayton County State Court on June 4 to add four defendants to the case, saying depositions and documentary discovery support claims of negligent hiring, training and supervision that contributed to the driver falling asleep behind the wheel.

Heath Brooks, counsel for the plaintiffs, told the court the driver fell asleep on recorded dash-cam video and that discovery shows multiple hours-of-service violations. Brooks said depositions revealed a safety consultant known as LMSC and its lead, Stuart Singleton, performed driver interviews, training and hours-of-service monitoring; that a staffing company, Cornerstone, provided the driver's helper; and that the operator's sale of assets to a company doing business as What Chefs Want (a successor buyer) may raise successor-liability issues. "We have over 30 violations of hours of service," Brooks said, arguing those facts support permissive joinder under OCGA § 9-11-20 and other joinder rules.

Defense counsel Mark Bardach, representing the existing defendants, urged the court to deny the motion as to each proposed party. Bardach said the record shows the driver was employed by Future Management (doing business as Phoenix Wholesale) and that none of the proposed additional defendants employed the driver, owned the truck, or otherwise owed a direct duty to the decedent. "There is not a statute or a rule or a regulation requiring a passenger of a commercial vehicle to stay awake," Bardach told the court, arguing Cornerstone and the staffing helper are not legally responsible for on-road safety in this fact pattern. He also disputed the factual basis for successor liability, saying the buyer purchased assets and did not assume liabilities and that there is no common ownership to support successor liability under Georgia law.

Plaintiffs' counsel said they had sought discovery from What Chefs Want and other nonparties and had been unable to obtain all responsive documents; they asked the court to permit joinder now to preserve claims and avoid additional suits. Defense counsel said third-party discovery and, if needed, later motions (12(b)(6) or summary judgment) are the appropriate vehicles and cautioned against imposing litigation costs on entities with tenuous connections.

Judge Hayward said she would consider the parties' arguments and the record and then issue a written order addressing each proposed defendant individually. "We will get an order to you," she told counsel, and signaled she would weigh (1) whether each proposed defendant is necessary or permissive under OCGA § 9-11-19/20 and (2) whether additional discovery should be compelled before joinder. The judge noted the case raises novel management and tort-reform issues and said she would balance the parties' competing efficiency and burden arguments before ruling.

The court did not rule at the hearing; counsel were told to expect a written order explaining which, if any, of the four proposed defendants will be joined.