Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Liability topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Court told to grant partial SJ on direct-negligence claims against Greenwood Motor Lines; training, supervision still disputed
Summary
Defense counsel said plaintiff would not oppose summary judgment on several direct-negligence claims against Greenwood Motor Lines, but plaintiff pressed negligent training and supervision issues tied to company practices and driver training records; the judge said she would consider the narrower training/supervision dispute.
Defendant counsel Jason Stewart told Judge Hayward that the plaintiff had indicated it would not oppose partial summary judgment on negligent hiring, retention, entrustment, negligent per se and negligent inspection/maintenance claims against Greenwood Motor Lines (R and L carriers). The defense sought judgment on those direct-negligence theories as not supported by the record.
Stewart emphasized the driver, Mr. Reynolds, had a long, clean driving record and that the company provided regular safety meetings and driver trainers; he said a dash-cam video shows the collision was a low-speed tap. Plaintiff's counsel acknowledged conceding some claims but argued there is evidence that training was inadequate (describing space-management training that lasted "4 or 5 seconds") and that Reynolds could not articulate certain industry safety steps. Plaintiff urged that the lack of documented training and testimony about training modules are triable issues for negligent training and supervision.
Judge Hayward said she would carefully consider industry standards, the corporate policies, and the deposition evidence before issuing a ruling limited to the training and supervision claims.
