585 F.Supp.3d 1131
S.D. Ill.2022Background
- On July 20, 2019, a tractor-trailer driven by Asllan Pino (employed by Hard Drive Express, hauling a FedEx Ground trailer) struck stopped traffic on I-70; multiple passengers in an SUV died and two plaintiffs survived.
- Pino, an Albanian native, had worked for FedEx Ground/Hard Drive for years; controversy exists over a 2013 FedEx English assessment (questioned scoring and no retest) and whether he could read/speak English sufficiently under FMCSR §391.11(b)(2).
- At the scene Pino received citations including one for being an unqualified commercial driver for lack of English; later a judge found him guilty of a petty offense and DOT issued a carrier-level violation to FedEx Ground after the crash.
- Plaintiffs sued FedEx Ground and Hard Drive alleging negligent hiring and retention and sought punitive damages; defendants moved for partial summary judgment on those claims and moved to exclude two experts (Erik Gaull and Lew Grill).
- The court denied both summary judgment motions (negligent hiring/retention; punitive damages), granted exclusion of Gaull, and granted in part/denied in part exclusion of Grill, leaving proximate-cause and willful/wanton fact questions for the jury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Negligent hiring/retention (proximate cause/foreseeability) | FedEx/Hard Drive negligently hired/retained Pino despite notice he was unqualified (English), and that negligence proximately caused the deaths/injuries | Causation is lacking: accident resulted from Pino's failure to stop/speeding, not from any English deficiency; insufficient nexus between alleged unfitness and harm | Denied summary judgment; factual disputes (assessment scoring, DOT violation, police citation) make foreseeability/proximate cause jury questions |
| Punitive damages | Evidence (altered test score, regulatory noncompliance, alleged disregard for safety rules) supports willful/wanton conduct to punish/deter | Internal-policy violations insufficient as a matter of law for punitive damages | Denied summary judgment; punitive damages may be presented to the jury but Defendants may renew motion at close of evidence |
| Exclusion of Erik Gaull (psychological/emotional impact testimony) | Gaull may opine on nature/severity of crash, extrication, and emotional distress based on paramedic experience and literature | Gaull lacks qualifications to offer psychological theory, relies on untested/unsupported extrapolation and personal anecdotes | Granted: Gaull excluded for insufficient methodology/qualification to opine on psychological phenomena and for impermissible speculation |
| Exclusion of Lew Grill (trucking/regulatory expert) | Grill may testify on FMCSR compliance, driver qualification, and safety management systems based on long trucking-industry experience | Grill lacks linguistic qualification to assess English proficiency, may invade legal conclusions and speculate about causation | Granted in part/Denied in part: Grill may testify about FMCSR requirements, safety management systems, and industry practices, but may not offer legal conclusions, interpret regs beyond their text, opine on ultimate causation, or speculate beyond his factual basis |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard governing Rule 56)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (evidentiary standard for assessing genuine dispute at summary judgment)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (court must gatekeep expert reliability under Rule 702)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (Daubert principles apply to non-scientific expert testimony)
- General Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (courts may exclude expert opinions with an analytical gap from data)
- Van Horne v. Muller, 185 Ill.2d 299 (Illinois recognition and elements of negligent hiring/retention claim)
- Anicich v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 852 F.3d 643 (Seventh Circuit applying foreseeability/proximate cause in negligent-hiring context)
- Bielskis v. Louisville Ladder, Inc., 663 F.3d 887 (Rule 702 admissibility framework in the Seventh Circuit)