Hejnal v. U.S. XPress Inc
4:17-cv-02557
| E.D. Mo. | Jan 24, 2018Background
- On Feb. 15, 2014, plaintiff Donald Hejnal was injured in a collision on I-44 when a tractor-trailer driven by Janine Williams, owned and/or operated by U.S. Xpress, changed lanes and struck his vehicle.
- Hejnal sued Williams (Count I) for negligence and U.S. Xpress (Counts II–V) under respondeat superior, negligent hiring/retention, negligent training, and negligent entrustment, seeking actual and punitive damages.
- U.S. Xpress moved for judgment on the pleadings (Rule 12(c)) arguing Counts II–V are boilerplate, lack case-specific factual allegations, and therefore fail under Rule 8/Iqbal/Twombly; alternatively it moved to strike allegations referencing FMCSR violations.
- The court applied the Rule 12(c)/(b)(6) standard (accepting well-pleaded facts, rejecting legal conclusions) and excluded extrinsic exhibits the defendant submitted.
- The court found the complaint pleads sufficient factual allegations that Williams was an employee acting within the scope of employment, that she had a history of traffic/FMCSR violations, and that U.S. Xpress allegedly failed to train/supervise and nevertheless entrusted the truck to her.
- The court denied the motion in full, ruling form-pleading alone is not fatal, the negligent hiring/retention, training, and entrustment claims are plausibly pleaded, and FMCSR references are admissible as evidence of standards of care and not subject to striking.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of Counts II–V (form/"boilerplate") | Complaint alleges employer liability, specific facts about Williams’ history and regulatory violations; pleads sufficient grounds. | Pleadings are boilerplate copied from other cases and lack case-specific facts so fail Iqbal/Twombly. | Denied — form pleadings are common; defendant offered no authority that use of standard-form pleadings alone defeats plausibility. |
| Negligent hiring/retention (Count III) — factual sufficiency | Alleged Williams was unqualified, had traffic/FMCSR violations, and Xpress knew or should have known; causation alleged. | Allegations are conclusory; some cases require prior acts showing employer notice; also argued inconsistency with respondeat superior. | Denied — factual allegations that Williams had a history of serious violations and that Xpress knew or should have known are enough to plead negligent hiring/retention; negligent retention does not require employee acted outside scope. |
| Negligent training (Count IV) — factual sufficiency | Alleges failure to instruct on specific FMCSRs and to provide adequate continuing safety courses. | Allegations are conclusory; no facts about what training was provided or how it caused the crash. | Denied — allegations about failure to instruct on specific FMCSR provisions and lack of continuing safety courses are factual and plausibly plead negligent training. |
| Negligent entrustment (Count V) and FMCSR references | Alleges Williams was incompetent due to history/experience/training; Xpress knew and entrusted the vehicle; FMCSR violations used to show standard of care. | Entrustment claim lacks specific facts about Williams’ history; FMCSR allegations should be stricken because no private cause of action. | Denied — pleaded facts (history of violations, deficient training, entrustment) suffice for negligent entrustment; FMCSR references are permissible evidence of duty/standard of care and not stricken. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard: factual matter must plausibly state a claim)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Schnuck Markets, Inc. v. First Data Merchant Servs. Corp., 852 F.3d 732 (8th Cir. 2017) (standard for Rule 12(c) motions)
- Powers v. Credit Mgmt. Servs., Inc., 776 F.3d 567 (8th Cir. 2015) (recognizing routine use of standard form pleadings)
- Gibson v. Brewer, 952 S.W.2d 239 (Mo. 1997) (en banc) (elements of negligent hiring/retention under Missouri law)
- McHaffie ex rel. McHaffie v. Bunch, 891 S.W.2d 822 (Mo. 1995) (en banc) (elements of negligent entrustment)
- Porous Media Corp. v. Pall Corp., 186 F.3d 1077 (8th Cir. 1999) (materials courts may consider on Rule 12(c))
- McAuley v. Federal Ins. Co., 500 F.3d 784 (8th Cir. 2007) (when Rule 12(c) converts to summary judgment if matters outside pleadings considered)