121 N.E.3d 1095
Ind. Ct. App.2019Background
- Wilkes, an over‑the‑road driver for Knight Transport, picked up a loaded trailer at Celadon’s Columbus, Indiana facility that contained stacked, greasy reusable trays owned by Cummins.
- Celadon’s employee (Wilson) loaded the trailer; Celadon directed Wilkes where to pick up the trailer and did not represent the trailer was secured. Cummins did not supervise or inspect loading and turned the returnables over to Celadon.
- Wilkes performed a cursory visual check with the trailer doors open, sealed the trailer, and departed; the load was not strapped or shrink‑wrapped.
- En route to OIC Contract Services, Wilkes felt no shift; at OIC, when opening the second door a stack cascaded out and seriously injured him.
- Wilkes sued for negligence (including negligent hiring/supervision); the trial court granted summary judgment for Celadon and Cummins on the ground neither owed him a duty; Wilkes appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Celadon owed Wilkes a duty of care | Celadon controlled and loaded the trailer, summoned Knight, and presented a load that was greasy, stacked to the ceiling, and impractical to inspect; therefore Celadon owed Wilkes a duty | Celadon argued drivers (and carriers) have a regulatory, non‑delegable duty to inspect (FMCSRs); the load was open to inspection and Wilkes failed to properly inspect, so Celadon owed no duty | Reversed: A question of fact exists whether the defect was latent and whether Celadon owed a duty; summary judgment for Celadon was improper |
| Whether Cummins owed Wilkes a duty of care | Cummins owned the cargo and provided the stacked, greasy trays to Celadon for shipment, so Cummins owed a duty | Cummins handed exclusive control of loading to Celadon, did not supervise or assure safety, and had no relationship or control over the instrumentality causing harm, so no duty existed | Affirmed: Cummins did not owe Wilkes a duty and summary judgment for Cummins was proper |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Savage Truck Line, Inc., 209 F.2d 442 (2d Cir. 1953) (articulates the "Savage rule" allocating primary duty for safe loading to carrier but exposing shipper liability for latent defects)
- Decker v. New England Public Warehouse, Inc., 749 A.2d 762 (Me. 2000) (adopts Savage rule and explains latent‑vs‑open‑and‑obvious analysis and policy rationale)
- Spence v. ESAB Group, Inc., 623 F.3d 212 (3d Cir. 2010) (applies Savage principles and recognizes that a shipper may owe a duty depending on its role and that comparative fault remains available)