Employer Liability

Holding Employers Accountable in Maryland Truck Accidents

February 4, 2020 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

In the unfortunate event of a Maryland truck accident, if an employee was behind the wheel, in some circumstances the employer may be able held liable as well. Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, an employer may be liable for the wrongful acts of its employees, as long as the acts were committed while acting within the scope of employment. The doctrine attributes the acts to the employer even without any wrongdoing on the part of the employer. Instead, the employer is held liable based only on the employer-employee relationship. Under Maryland law, an employer may be sued without suing the employee. The doctrine is meant to hold employers accountable for the actions of an employee because the employee is acting in the employer’s interest and also because the employer often can bear the financial loss better than an employee.

One recent case before a state appellate court illustrated the limits of respondeat superior. In that case, a car crash left a woman dead and her daughter injured. The crash occurred after the tire of another car separated from the car, crossed the median and hit the mother’s car. The husband of the woman (and father of the daughter) filed lawsuits against the driver, his employer, and other parties. According to the court’s opinion, as the employee was driving, another vehicle suddenly came into his travel lane and to avoid a collision, and he quickly changed lanes, causing his tire to come off. The plaintiff claimed that the driver failed to maintain the truck in a safe operating condition and that the employer was vicariously liable. The driver recently did work on his car and had removed the wheels. The employer filed a motion for summary judgment to be dismissed, but the trial court denied the motion.

On appeal, the employer argued that the driver was not driving negligently at the time of the collision. The driver of the vehicle worked as a construction technician. That day, he drove to a warehouse for work, and then drove with a co-worker to a job site. They left the job site and were driving to a guitar store before they had to be at the next job site. He and his co-worker both said that they did not notice anything wrong with the car.

Holding Employers Accountable in Maryland Truck Accident Cases

December 16, 2019 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Under Maryland law, the employer of an independent contractor generally is not liable for damages caused by the actions of the independent contractor. However, there are a number of exceptions to the rule. For example, employers may be held liable in instances in which the employer was negligent in selecting, instructing, or supervising the contractor, the work was inherently dangerous, or the employer had a non-delegable duty.

The non-delegable duty exception means that an employer is not absolved of certain responsibilities even if the employer hires an independent contractor. In these situations, an employer is still free to delegate those responsibilities—but the law views such duties as being so important that the employer is still on the hook for improperly carrying out these duties or for failing to carry them out. There are a number of duties that courts have found are non-delegable duties. For example, duties imposed by statute, such as following building code provisions, are often non-delegable duties for building owners.

An appeals court in one state recently decided a truck accident case in which the court found that the employer did not have a non-delegable duty despite alleged violations of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. In that case, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against a company after a tire from one of its trailers detached and crashed into a vehicle in which the plaintiff was a passenger. She claimed that a mechanic failed to properly repair the trailer in the month before the crash, and that the defendant had a non-delegable duty to inspect, repair, maintain, and operate the trailer in a safe condition. She argued that the defendant knew or should have known that the repairs were not properly done.

Can a Truck Driver’s Employer Be Held Liable in a Maryland Truck Accident?

January 18, 2019 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

One question that frequently comes up when discussing how a Maryland truck accident victim can recover for their injuries is whether the at-fault truck driver’s employer can also be held responsible. As is often the case with legal determinations, the answer depends on the circumstances surrounding the accident and the relationship between the parties.

Employers can be held vicariously liable for the negligent acts of their employees under the doctrine of respondeat superior. As a general matter, to establish an employer’s liability a plaintiff must show that the employee’s allegedly negligent actions were within the scope of their employment.

Under Maryland case law, courts look beyond the question of whether the employee’s actions occurred while the employee was working for the employer, and focus instead on whether the employee’s actions were in furtherance of the employer’s business. Simplified, courts look to whether the employee’s actions were incidental to their job. However, before courts get to this question the plaintiff must first establish that an employee/employer relationship existed. A recent case illustrates how this situation may arise.

The Doctrines of Vicarious Liability, Negligent Entrustment, and Respondeat Superior

October 24, 2018 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

One of the most critical decisions that must be made early on in a Maryland personal injury case is which parties to name as defendants and which claims to pursue. This is particularly important in Maryland truck accidents because truck drivers are frequently working at the time of the accident. Thus, the circumstances of a truck accident often mean that a truck driver’s employer and the owner of the truck should also be considered as potential defendants.

Under Maryland law, there are several theories of liability that may come into play in truck accident cases. A recent case discusses two commonly conflated claims, and illustrates why they are unique from one another.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was killed in a motorcycle accident when a truck driver attempted to make an improper left turn as the plaintiff approached the intersection. The truck driver was working at the time of the crash, and was later found to be under the influence of prohibited prescription medication.

Court Interprets Scope of Settlement Agreement in Recent Delivery Driver Accident

September 19, 2018 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Recently, a state appellate court issued a written opinion in a personal injury case discussing an interesting issue that will occasionally come up in Maryland truck accident cases. Specifically, the case dealt with a settlement agreement that was executed between the plaintiff and several potentially liable parties, whereby the plaintiff accepted compensation in exchange for an agreement to excuse the parties from liability.

The question the court had to answer was whether the broad language of that agreement resulted in the remaining potentially liable parties being excused from liability as well. In so doing, the court took the rare step to consider extrinsic evidence that was not contained in the settlement agreement to determine the intent of the parties.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was injured in an accident involving a sandwich delivery truck. Within two weeks of the accident, the plaintiff entered into a settlement agreement with the vehicle’s owner and the owner’s insurance company. That agreement provided that the plaintiff would receive $25,000, the policy maximum, and in exchange would “release, acquit and forever discharge the said payor(s), their agents and employees, and all other persons, firms or corporations who are or might be liable” for injuries resulting from the accident.

Court Finds Truck Driver Not Liable to Motorist Injured in Chain-Reaction Accident

November 23, 2016 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, an appellate court in Mississippi issued a written opinion in a chain-reaction truck accident case, affirming judgment in favor of the allegedly negligent truck driver and his employer. In the case, Ready v. RWI Transportation, the court determined that the plaintiff’s injuries in a subsequent accident not involving the defendant were not a foreseeable consequence of the defendants’ negligence. As a result of the decision, the plaintiff will not be permitted to pursue compensation for their injuries.

The Facts of the Case

A truck driver employed by RWI Transportation caused an accident when he made an improper lane change on a Mississippi highway. As a result of that initial accident, the truck and another vehicle were left incapacitated and came to a rest while blocking the highway. Traffic was slowed, and a significant traffic jam formed.

About 30 minutes later, while traffic was still moving slowly, Ready approached the traffic jam and crashed into the back of another vehicle that had come to a complete stop as a result of the traffic jam. Ready filed a personal injury lawsuit against RWI Transportation and the driver of the truck involved in the initial accident. Ready claimed that the truck driver’s negligence was the cause of the subsequent accident that resulted in his injuries.

Liability in Maryland Truck Accidents May Extend Beyond the Truck Driver

October 26, 2016 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Truck drivers, like all other motorists, have a duty to other motorists on the road to ensure that they operate their vehicles in a safe and responsible manner. This includes only driving when it is safe to do so as well as taking precautions to ensure that their vehicles are safe. A driver’s failure to take the necessary precautions increases the chance that a serious or fatal accident will occur and also exposes that driver to civil liability for any injuries that occur as a result of his negligence.

Liability in a trucking accident may also extend to the company that employed the negligent truck driver. In some cases, a trucking company overlooks safety violations, fails to conduct adequate background checks, or otherwise employs unqualified truck drivers or dangerous vehicles. In these situations, the trucking company may be held liable for the accident victim’s injuries in addition to the truck’s driver.

Georgia Trucking Company Ordered to Remove Trucks from Operation Based on an “Imminent Hazard to Public Safety”

Earlier this month, a Georgia-based trucking company was ordered to remove its fleet from the road after a series of serious safety violations. According to an industry news source, the most recent incident involved a truck driver who was speeding around a curve and lost control of his vehicle. The truck then crashed into a woman’s home, causing an explosion and subsequent fire. Sadly, the woman in the home was killed as a result, and four others present were seriously injured. In all, four homes sustained property damage.

Evidence of Repeated Safety Violations May Be Relevant in Maryland Truck Accident Cases

July 21, 2016 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Semi-trucks and other commercial vehicles and the employees operating them are required to abide by various safety regulations and guidelines that may not apply to normal drivers. Companies and drivers can be cited by state transportation authorities if an inspection or accident reveals violations of the driving or equipment regulations established by the authorities. Companies or drivers with repeated or excessive violations may face administrative consequences, especially in the event of an accident related to the violation.

The Role of Previous Safety Violations in an Accident Lawsuit

The victims of a Maryland semi-truck accident may discover that the commercial vehicle or driver involved in their crash has been cited in the past for a safety violation that relates to the apparent cause of their own accident. As the plaintiff in a Maryland truck accident lawsuit, the accident victim may be able to introduce evidence of previous safety violations to demonstrate the defendant’s negligence in causing the accident. Evidence that a defendant has repeatedly violated safety regulations in the past should give the plaintiff an advantage in making the case for damages. However, this evidence will not necessarily be admitted without litigation over its admission.

Punitive Damages and a Pattern of Gross Negligence in Maryland and D.C.

In some jurisdictions, an accident victim may be entitled to additional damages above and beyond the economic and noneconomic damages relating to their injuries from the accident. In Maryland, punitive damages may only be awarded in a negligence lawsuit by showing actual malice, but in Washington, D.C., punitive damages can be awarded when a defendant has acted in willful disregard of the plaintiff’s rights and was reckless toward the plaintiff’s safety. In some cases, it could be argued that a pattern of gross negligence by a defendant who was guilty of repeated safety violations that resulted in an accident justifies an award of punitive damages to the plaintiff.

Truck Driver’s Employer Found Liable for Failing to Arrange Safe Crossing at Narrow Bridge

March 10, 2016 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, a Missouri appellate court issued a written opinion in the case of Brown v. Davis, holding that a truck driver’s employer could properly be held liable for his role in a fatal accident occurring on a narrow bridge. The court determined that the employer did owe the victim a legal duty to ensure a safe crossing across the narrow bridge where the accident occurred, and that the employer breached that duty when he failed to arrange for a safe crossing.

The Facts of the Case

The defendant was the employer of a truck driver who was towing a logging machine on a flatbed trailer. Since the loaded trailer was wider than a single lane, it protruded into the oncoming lane in areas where the road was narrow. One such location where the load protruded into the opposite lane was a narrow bridge.

Before the truck driver crossed the bridge, the driver’s employer crossed and made sure that it was clear. However, the employer told the driver that the bridge was “all clear” when it was not. A car came over the bridge, and the truck driver knew that there was not likely room for both, so he moved over as much as he could. As he moved over, the logging machine struck the side of the bridge, came loose, and collided with the other vehicle, killing the driver.