Here we are into our second week of a new semester! How are you doing? I want to remind you that you are doing great! Keep working hard and know you can conquer any hardships that come your way! This week, I want to share a case with you where an executive traveling from the U.S. to Germany was injured in a car crash after being picked up from an airport in Germany. The predominant issue in this case was to determine who was liable: the Massachusetts Transportation Company, the German Transportation Company, or both? Keep reading to find out!
The Plaintiff is a 50-year-old executive whose work requires him to travel. The Plaintiff’s assistant called one of the world’s largest transportation companies, located in Massachusetts, to drive the Plaintiff from his home to Logan International Airport and then for a driver to pick him up from Frankfurt Airport in Germany and drop him off at his ultimate destination.
On September 23, 2015, the Plaintiff arrived at the Frankfurt Airport and was picked up by a driver with a Tesla Sedan. During the drive to the Plaintiff’s final destination, the driver passed out and the car veered off through a fence, across a field, at a high rate of speed. Eventually, the care struck a tree and the Plaintiff was badly injured requiring him to be air-flighted to a German hospital.
A lawsuit was filed by the Plaintiff in Norfolk Superior Court against the Massachusetts Transportation Company arguing that it had “responsibility for the accident in that it should have vetted the German driver better.” The Massachusetts Transportation Company never answered the complaint, but rather filed a Motion to Dismiss. The company argued that the accident happened in Germany, that it was subject to German law, and any and all witnesses were residents of Germany. Furthermore, the company argued that the German company was an independent contractor and that any case would have to be pursued in Germany.
The Plaintiff still persisted and obtained a copy of a contract that existed between the Massachusetts Transportation Company and the German company. “The document stated that the German company had to adhere to strict guidelines set by the American company. In short, the contract dictated the color of the car that would have to be used in Germany; what the drivers could wear; what they could and could not talk about; what needed to be in the car; what time they would have to arrive at a job; how they would bill; a prohibition against tips; and a requirement that the German driver carry place cards that identified the drivers as part of the American company. It even stated that the drivers could not give out business cards other than that of the American company.”
After all these findings, the Plaintiff argued that the American company exercised significant control over the German company and pointed out the contract even stated that in the event a dispute arose, the German company agreed to submit to the Massachusetts jurisdiction. Shortly before the Motion to Dismiss was to be heard, the Defendant Transportation company agreed to mediate the case. After a long day of mediation, the parties settled at $2.5 million dollars on October 8, 2020.
Do you think the Massachusetts Transportation Company was rightfully held
to be vicariously liable for the German Company’s actions? Why or Why Not?
Yes, with my limited experience in the legal academic environment and coupled with my growing understanding strict liability it does appear that the Massachusetts company is strictly liable for the acts and injuries caused by the German company. The Massachusetts company appeared to have more than a reasonable amount of control over the German company through dictating the choice of clothing, the dictating of what business cards to provide, the mandatory color of the vehicle, Etc. This appears to be more control than would be allowable if the German company were a true independent contractor. I also find it interesting that this situation was settled through mediation versus a trial or arbitration. it's a good option, I just find it interesting
ReplyDeleteHi Jacquelynn, thank you for your great analysis! I agree with you in that the amount of control the MTC company exerted on GTC is indicative of their vicarious liability. I think they decided to mediate prior to trial because MTC knew that there's a high possibility that they would lose at trial, so in order to avoid possibly losing an even bigger amount, they decided to settle at $2.5 million. Thank you for sharing your comment with us! Hope you continue to do so. Your POV and argument matters!
DeleteYes, I do think the mediation went as I had expected in settling for $2.5 Million dollars for the plaintiff because MA transportation Company was vicariously liable.
ReplyDeleteReading this, my mind went straight to trying to identify the agency relationship between the MA transportation company and the German company.
As the facts given above described, the kind of control MA transportation company had over the German company was one that a court would look into how:
1. the principal is controlling the independent contractor(I.C.) as to the same extent as their own employees (dictating their means, method, and manner of their work) or
2. where the facts fall into an exception to the rule where the courts may impose vicariously liability on a principal for their I.C tortious conduct when it involves an inherently dangerous activity. Here, driving is not abnormally dangerous because it is an activity that is in common usage even though it does involve a great amount of risk.
Therefore, the facts would support that a court would likely find the I.C. was acting more as an employee than an I.C. because of all of the dictating MA Transportation Company was doing. My assumption is that the parties knew a court of law would more likely than not find enough evidence to support that conclusion, so to save lots of time & attorney fees, the parties went to mediation and was able to settle the case quickly.
Hi Kristy, I love the rule of law you gave describing the two instances a company may be held liable for their inferior. Great analysis! I agree, definitely MTC can be found to be liable through prong 1 you stated in your comment. The amount of control exerted over GTC was clear that GTC was not an independent contractor. Thank you for contributing, Kristy! I would love to see your comments on the cases I plan to post in the future!
DeleteDo you think the Massachusetts Transportation Company was rightfully held
ReplyDeleteto be vicariously liable for the German Company’s actions?
I do believe that the MTC should be held liable for the German Company's actions.
Why or Why Not?
The primary reason why I argue this is because of the MTC exercised complete control over the actions of the German company. From the color of vehicle which they were to drive, to their interactions with customers of MTC. In short, the German company was acting at he behest of MTC without exception. Therefore, due to the German company acting within the scope of their employment for MTC, the covenant of respondeat superior may be exercised to relieve the German company of liability in the accident. Lastly, we must ask, "was there anything that would have put a reasonable MTC customer on notice that they were no longer being served by MTC?" The answer without question is no. The German company acted as if they were MTC, and located in Massachusetts. In light of these facts, and covenant's, MTC is liable for injuries caused by one of their drivers. Great Post Professor.
Wow! Thank you for the great analysis. I agree with you, control is the key word in analyzing whether MTC is liable for GTC's conduct. I love your pinpoint of the details showing the control that was exerted, such an example like you pointed out, include the color of the vehicle, all the way to how the GTC employees are supposed to dress. Thank you for your thorough analysis!
DeleteOscar
ReplyDeleteDo you think the Massachusetts Transportation Company was rightfully held
to be vicariously liable for the German Company’s actions?
I do believe that the MTC should be held liable for the German Company's actions.
Why or Why Not?
The primary reason why I argue this is because of the MTC exercised complete control over the actions of the German company. From the color of vehicle which they were to drive, to their interactions with customers of MTC. In short, the German company was acting at he behest of MTC without exception. Therefore, due to the German company acting within the scope of their employment for MTC, the covenant of respondeat superior may be exercised to relieve the German company of liability in the accident. Lastly, we must ask, "was there anything that would have put a reasonable MTC customer on notice that they were no longer being served by MTC?" The answer without question is no. The German company acted as if they were MTC, and located in Massachusetts. In light of these facts, and covenant's, MTC is liable for injuries caused by one of their drivers. Great Post Professor.
Hi Oscar, I replied to your comment above! Just to clarify, I'm not a professor, haha. I am a 3L student at MSLAW! Thank you for contributing, I do hope you continue to do so!
DeleteThe MTC was rightfully held liable for the negligent conduct of its agents while in the scope of employment. The drivers were not I.Cs because MTC controlled every aspect from what to where, what to do or not do, etc...However, if the driver deviated from what's agreed on the contract, he would be in a frolic of his own and MTC would not be liable for the crash which caused the injuries plaintiff sustained. MTC knew that it was liable and that is the reason they mediated and settled the case.
ReplyDeleteAmazing point about if the driver was on his own, it would be considered a frolic, and at that point, liability on MTC has been severed. Thank you for your great analysis! I would love to read more of your contributions on my coming posts. I'm happy to see your comment!
Delete