Garlick v. Trans Tech Logistics, Inc.
4:12-cv-01166
M.D. Penn.Aug 15, 2017Background
- Decedent George B. Garlick, a Trans Tech/ QC Energy contracted water‑truck driver with ~3 weeks’ experience, missed a right turn onto Beech Creek Road around 2:20 a.m., traveled ~2.5 miles on State Route 144 in the wrong direction, then failed to negotiate a curve and crashed down an embankment, suffering fatal injuries.
- Anadarko supplied QC Energy (not the driver) with written, accurate suggested directions to its 48 well pads compiled with local authorities; drivers/employers were not required to follow them exclusively and Anadarko did not promise additional precautions.
- The truck was owned/maintained by QC Energy; Plaintiff later alleged brake failure and QC Energy negligence, but QC Energy obtained summary judgment under the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act and was dismissed from the case on appeal.
- Plaintiff sued Anadarko asserting negligence and liability under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 323 (negligent performance of an undertaking), arguing Anadarko should have provided signage, lighting, flagmen or the "safest route possible."
- The Third Circuit remanded Anadarko’s dismissal; on remand the district court granted Anadarko summary judgment, holding (inter alia) that Plaintiff failed to show Anadarko breached a duty or that Anadarko’s conduct proximately caused the crash.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Anadarko assumed a § 323 undertaking creating a duty to drivers | Anadarko undertook to select and provide safe routes and thus owed drivers duties (signs, lighting, flagmen) | Anadarko only provided accurate directions; it made no promise of signage, lighting, or other precautions | Court: § 323 does not impose such an expansive duty here; Anadarko’s role was limited to providing accurate directions and did not breach a duty of reasonable care |
| Whether Anadarko breached a duty by not providing signage, lighting, or making the "safest route possible" | Garlick contends lack of such measures caused the missed turn/crash; counsel advanced "safest route possible" theory | Anadarko contends it did not control or maintain public roads, had no notice, and provided accurate directions; remedial measures are the state's responsibility | Court: Plaintiff failed to plead or develop the "safest route" theory; imposing absolute or heightened duties would be improper; no breach as a matter of law |
| Proximate causation — whether Anadarko’s directions (or lack of signs) proximately caused the crash | If missed turn was caused by lack of signage/directions, then Anadarko’s omission is the proximate cause of the crash | Anadarko points to numerous alternative causes (driver fatigue, inexperience, distraction, brake failure) and intervening events breaking causal chain | Court: Plaintiff presented no evidence showing why the turn was missed or that Anadarko’s acts were a substantial factor; proximate causation not established |
| Admissibility/pleading of novel theory ("safest route possible") and prejudice from late theory | Plaintiff argued broader duty on appeal and orally before the Third Circuit | Anadarko argued the theory was unpled, discovery never addressed it, and allowing it now prejudices Anadarko | Court: Novel, unpleaded theory cannot be tried without Anadarko’s consent; Plaintiff did not move to amend; summary judgment warranted on procedural grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard and burdens) (U.S. 1986)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (standard for evaluating sufficiency of evidence at summary judgment) (U.S. 1986)
- Morena v. S. Hills Health Sys., 462 A.2d 680 (Pa. 1983) (adoption/discussion of Restatement § 323 in Pennsylvania law)
- Fedorczyk v. Caribbean Cruise Lines, Ltd., 82 F.3d 69 (evidence merely consistent with liability is insufficient to show causation) (3d Cir.)
- Van Buskirk v. Carey Canadian Mines, Ltd., 760 F.2d 481 (proximate cause and substantial factor test discussion) (3d Cir.)
- Fagan v. Dep’t of Transportation, 946 A.2d 1123 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2008) (failure to show cause of leaving roadway defeats negligence claim against road owner/operator)
- Snyder v. Harmon, 562 A.2d 307 (absence of lighting alone insufficient to prove proximate cause) (Pa. 1989)