Le v. Total Quality Logistics, LLC
431 P.3d 366
| Okla. Civ. App. | 2018Background
- Passenger Le was injured when a tractor-trailer driven by Gurinder Singh (an Arora employee) struck the car; the load (refrigerated strawberries) had been consigned by Eclipse Berry Farms and brokered by Total Quality Logistics, LLC (TQL).
- Le sued Singh and Arora (carrier) for negligence and sued TQL on agency/respondeat superior, negligent hiring, joint venture, and related theories.
- TQL moved for summary judgment arguing it was a broker, not a carrier or employer, and that Le lacked evidence of the elements for agency, negligent hiring, or joint venture; the district court granted summary judgment for TQL.
- On appeal, the court reviewed de novo whether evidence created a genuine issue of material fact on (1) whether TQL was a motor carrier/statutory employer, (2) whether TQL exercised control making it a principal/agent, (3) whether TQL negligently hired Arora or the driver, and (4) whether a joint venture existed.
- The court emphasized common-law rules disfavoring vicarious liability for hirers of independent contractors absent special circumstances, and rejected importing Carmack Amendment carrier status or FMCSA lease doctrines to create respondeat superior liability here.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether TQL was a "motor carrier" or statutory employer such that it is vicariously liable | Le: TQL committed to deliver the load and thus functionally was a motor carrier/broker that became the employer/principal of the driver | TQL: Carmack and cargo-liability analyses do not make a broker a motor carrier for personal-injury respondeat superior purposes; TQL had no trucks or drivers | Held: Rejected. Carmack and related carrier-status rules for cargo liability do not convert TQL into a motor carrier/employer for personal-injury vicarious liability |
| Whether TQL exercised sufficient control to be principal/agent for the driver | Le: TQL imposed detailed shipping and communication requirements amounting to control over the driver | TQL: Claimed requirements were routine shipper/broker specifications and did not give power to direct driver conduct | Held: Rejected. Identified controls were ordinary commercial requirements and insufficient as a matter of law to create agency or to have proximately caused the crash |
| Whether TQL negligently hired/supervised Arora or the driver | Le: TQL should have investigated carrier and driver records (SafeStat, TIA guidelines) and discovered unfitness; failure to do so was negligent hiring | TQL: Had substantial prior dealings with Arora, Arora was a licensed carrier with insurance, and no red flags existed that would trigger an enhanced duty; private TIA guidelines are not legal standards | Held: Rejected. No evidence TQL had actual or constructive knowledge of unfitness; no legal duty to perform the broad checks urged by Le under Oklahoma law |
| Whether TQL and Arora formed a joint venture | Le: Expert opined joint control and joint venture; later price adjustments after damage show shared risk/profit | TQL: Relationship was a standard broker-carrier contractual arrangement with separate, several profits (TQL markup over carrier price) | Held: Rejected. No evidence of an express or implied agreement to share profits/losses required for joint venture; profits here were several, not joint |
Key Cases Cited
- Hudgens v. Cook Indus., Inc., 521 P.2d 813 (Okla. 1973) (hirer of independent contractor not liable absent special circumstances; duty to investigate where work inherently dangerous)
- Holland v. Dolese Co., 643 P.2d 317 (Okla. 1982) (evidence supported finding contractor was independent and driver was contractor’s employee)
- L. B. Foster Co. v. Hurnblad, 418 F.2d 727 (9th Cir. 1969) (heightened duty to investigate where the work was peculiarly dangerous)
- Sperl v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., 946 N.E.2d 463 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011) (agency found where broker exerted extraordinary operational control, fines, and scheduling that pressured hours-of-service violations)
- Schramm v. Foster, 341 F. Supp. 2d 536 (D. Md. 2004) (district court opinion articulating broad broker duties to check carrier safety records; court here declined to adopt those expanded duties)