408 P.3d 1156
Wyo.2018Background
- Bogdanski and Budzik were two-driver crew for BZ Trucking hauling FedEx trailers; on Feb. 17, 2011 Budzik was driving in snowy conditions on I-80 when the truck became stranded and Bogdanski exited to inspect and retrieve chains/triangles.
- While Bogdanski was on the catwalk getting equipment, a following truck driven by Marinov rear‑ended the stopped tractor‑trailer; Bogdanski was injured and later received Illinois workers’ compensation benefits.
- Bogdanski sued Budzik (negligence) and FedEx (direct negligence for negligent training and vicarious liability for Budzik’s negligence) in Wyoming state court; FedEx stipulated it would be vicariously liable for Budzik’s negligence, if any.
- Budzik obtained summary judgment on co‑employee immunity (workers’ compensation bar); FedEx moved for summary judgment on multiple grounds including that direct negligence claims are barred once respondeat superior has been admitted (McHaffie rule) and lack of evidentiary support for vicarious liability.
- The district court granted summary judgment to FedEx; the Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of the negligent‑training claim and Budzik’s immunity ruling, but reversed and remanded the vicarious liability claim against FedEx as triable on causation/breach (failure to deploy warning triangles raised a genuine issue).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. May plaintiff pursue a direct negligence (negligent training) claim after defendant stipulates to vicarious liability? | Bogdanski: FedEx has independent duties (e.g., 49 C.F.R. §390.11) so direct claim remains viable. | FedEx: Admission of respondeat superior makes negligent‑training claim duplicative (McHaffie rule). | Held: Adopted McHaffie majority rule — negligent‑hiring/training claims barred when employer admits vicarious liability; negligent‑training claim dismissed. |
| 2. Was summary judgment proper on vicarious liability given the record? | Bogdanski: Evidence (affidavit and industry expert) raises triable issues — especially failure to place warning triangles. | FedEx: Plaintiff lacks expert proof on causation and breach; movant argued no prima facie showing of defect in care. | Held: Reversed district court; genuine issue exists as to whether failure to place triangles breached duty and proximately caused injury — remanded for trial. |
| 3. Did co‑employee immunity bar claims against Budzik? | Bogdanski: Budzik’s conduct was willful/wanton, so immunity should not apply. | Budzik: Workers’ compensation bars tort claims by coemployees. | Held: Affirmed summary judgment for Budzik — workers’ comp benefits bar his tort liability. |
| 4. Did plaintiff present evidence on other alleged failures (chains, axle lock) sufficient to survive summary judgment? | Bogdanski: Expert opined chains/axle locking were below industry standard. | FedEx: Expert testimony speculative; record shows no other trucks chained and no foundation for axle‑lock claim. | Held: These aspects are closer; majority found insufficient foundation for some contentions but left them to district court on remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- McHaffie v. Bunch, 891 S.W.2d 822 (Mo. 1995) (articulates rule barring negligent‑entrustment/hiring claims after employer admits respondeat superior liability)
- Ferrer v. Okbamicael, 390 P.3d 836 (Colo. 2017) (discusses McHaffie rule and policy reasons for barring duplicative direct negligence claims)
- Beavis v. Campbell Cty. Mem’l Hosp., 20 P.3d 608 (Wyo. 2001) (Wyoming precedent that direct negligence recovery for negligent training depends on employee negligence)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (federal standard on summary judgment burdens; discussed in concurrence/dissent)