McAfee v. Howard Baer, Inc.
1:15-cv-00182
W.D.N.C.Jan 12, 2018Background
- On April 1, 2013, defendant Keith Campbell, driving a Howard Baer, Inc. truck, rear‑ended plaintiff Mercedes Powell on I‑26; Campbell received a citation for failure to reduce speed.
- Plaintiff sued Campbell for negligence and Howard Baer (Baer) for vicarious liability, negligent hiring/training/retention, negligent entrustment, and sought punitive damages.
- Defendants admitted employment and scope-of-employment but denied negligence and asserted sudden emergency and contributory negligence defenses.
- Baer moved for summary judgment; the court considered driver training, pre‑employment checks, safety meetings, drug testing, driving‑record reviews, and a small number of prior traffic citations in Baer’s personnel records.
- Plaintiff relied on a retained motor carrier safety expert to criticize Baer’s response to Campbell’s record; the court found the record did not support Plaintiff’s allegations of employer incompetence or willful/wanton conduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Negligent hiring/training/retention | Baer knew or should have known Campbell was incompetent and failed to act | Baer conducted reasonable hiring, training, drug/medical checks, log reviews, and safety supervision | Granted for Baer — no genuine issue that Baer negligently retained or trained Campbell |
| Negligent entrustment | Baer entrusted a vehicle to an incompetent/reckless driver based on prior violations | Campbell’s prior record was limited and Baer responded to log and compliance issues; no pattern showing incompetence | Granted for Baer — record insufficient to show negligent entrustment |
| Punitive damages (willful/wanton conduct) | Baer acted with conscious disregard of safety by keeping Campbell as a driver | Baer investigated, warned, and maintained oversight; no evidence of willful/wanton corporate conduct | Granted for Baer — plaintiff failed to show willful or wanton conduct by officers/managers |
| Underlying negligence claim v. Campbell | Campbell was negligent in rear‑ending plaintiff | Campbell contested negligence; officer cited him for failure to reduce speed | Not decided on merits in this order; summary judgment resolved only claims against Baer |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard re: genuine dispute)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (moving party’s summary judgment burden)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio, 475 U.S. 574 (nonmoving party must show triable issue)
- Monahan v. County of Chesterfield, 95 F.3d 1263 (summary judgment appropriate when no rational trier could find for nonmoving party)
- Wilkerson v. Duke Univ., 748 S.E.2d 154 (N.C. App. 2013) (elements for negligent retention/supervision)
- Tart v. Martin, 540 S.E.2d 332 (N.C. 2000) (negligent entrustment and insufficiency of isolated or stale violations)
- George v. Greyhound Lines, 708 S.E.2d 201 (N.C. App. 2011) (punitive damages corporate standard)