22 F.4th 22
1st Cir.2021Background
- B & C Timbers contracted Gregory Trucking to haul lumber; Gregory assigned employee Wiley Hooks and a truck it owned/leased to perform deliveries.
- BB&S bought and treated lumber; after a Gregory delivery to BB&S, BB&S contracted Gregory to deliver treated lumber to L.P. Adams in Dalton, MA (bill of lading governed that delivery).
- After Hooks delivered the BB&S load to L.P. Adams, Gregory Trucking directed him to a different job (pickup for Eagle Logistics). En route to that pickup, Hooks ran a red light and fatally struck George Forbes.
- Thomas Forbes, personal representative of the estate, sued BB&S in federal court alleging (1) negligent selection of an independent contractor under Massachusetts common law (invoking Restatement §411) and (2) that BB&S was a "statutory employer" under the FMCSR (49 C.F.R. § 390.5).
- The district court granted summary judgment for BB&S, holding Massachusetts law does not support imposing liability for an independent contractor’s post‑completion conduct and that BB&S was a "shipper," not a motor‑carrier/employer under the FMCSR; the First Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Massachusetts common law (Restatement §411) makes BB&S liable forHook's negligence after contract completion | Forbes: SJC would adopt §411 and hold BB&S liable for negligently hiring/selecting Gregory, extending duty beyond contract completion | BB&S: Massachusetts law limits duties to contractual obligations; no authority to impose liability for post‑delivery acts | Court: No basis to predict SJC would impose liability for post‑completion conduct; proximate cause lacking — summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether BB&S was a "statutory employer" under the FMCSR (49 C.F.R. § 390.5) | Forbes: BB&S fits FMCSR definitions of motor carrier/statutory employer and thus owed regulatory hiring/safety duties | BB&S: Under FMCSR definitions it was a "shipper"; Gregory Trucking was the motor carrier/employer that owned/leased the vehicle and controlled the driver | Court: Agreed BB&S was a shipper, not the statutorily defined motor carrier/employer; no FMCSR‑based liability for BB&S (Judge Barron did not join this portion) |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Fox Hill Vill. Homeowners Corp., 676 N.E.2d 821 (Mass. 1997) (Massachusetts decision that duties assumed under contract are limited to contractual obligations)
- Parent v. Stone & Webster Eng'g Corp., 556 N.E.2d 1009 (Mass. 1990) (similar principle limiting contractual duties)
- Kent v. Commonwealth, 771 N.E.2d 770 (Mass. 2002) (refusal to find proximate cause where defendant lacked control when harmful acts occurred)
- Brettman v. M&G Truck Brokerage, Inc., 127 N.E.3d 880 (Ill. App. Ct. 2019) (Illinois appellate decision rejecting post‑termination liability for independent contractor’s subsequent accident)
- Valdez v. Yates Petroleum Corp., 155 P.3d 786 (N.M. Ct. App. 2007) (New Mexico appellate decision holding §411 claim fails where accident occurred after delivery was complete)
- Harris v. FedEx Nat'l LTL, Inc., 760 F.3d 780 (8th Cir. 2014) (FMCSR applies to motor carriers, not shippers who hire independent contractors)
- Ledet v. Mills Van Lines, Inc., 150 N.E.3d 782 (Mass. App. Ct. 2020) (Massachusetts appellate decision that off‑duty or off‑scope acts are not foreseeable consequences of hiring for which employer is liable)
- Whittaker v. Saraceno, 635 N.E.2d 1185 (Mass. 1994) (discussion of foreseeability in duty and proximate cause analysis)
- Foss v. Marvic Inc., 994 F.3d 57 (1st Cir. 2021) (standard: de novo review of summary judgment cited by court)