331 F. Supp. 3d 879
D. Me.2018Background
- In November 2016 an STC-driven semi (operated that night by Anthony Shealey) left the roadway after he swerved to avoid six deer; the overturned trailer blocked westbound lanes and Ricardo Soto collided with the trailer.
- Shealey previously worked for STC, had documented speed and hours violations, and logged a “Critical Event Report” during 2016 training.
- After training, Shealey purchased his truck, became an owner-operator under a "Contractor Agreement" with STC that restricted hauling for others, required on‑board monitoring, and imposed company speed rules; STC retained substantial control over equipment and could repossess or restrict use.
- The Sotos sued: negligence against Shealey (Count I), direct negligence theories against STC (Count II) including negligent hiring, selection, retention, supervision, entrustment, and vicarious liability for Shealey (Count III).
- STC moved for partial summary judgment on Count II arguing no reasonable jury could find STC negligent; the court resolved each theory separately.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Employee status of Shealey | Facts show STC exercised control, so Shealey was effectively an employee | Shealey was an owner-operator/contractor, not an employee | Jury question: sufficient evidence for a jury to find employee; court analyzes other claims assuming jury could find either status |
| Negligent hiring & retention | STC negligently hired/kept an unfit driver given prior violations | These claims require an intentional tort by the employee | Granted: Sotos did not allege or present evidence of an intentional tort, so negligent hiring/retention fail |
| Negligent selection (of independent contractor) | STC selected/retained Shealey despite prior violations and critical-event history | Recognition of negligent selection is uncertain; STC argued no liability | Denied: Court predicts MN Supreme Court would recognize negligent selection and found genuine factual disputes for jury |
| Negligent supervision | STC retained detailed control and failed to supervise despite known risk indicators | STC disputed negligence as a matter of law | Denied: factual disputes exist about control, prior warnings, and whether STC failed to exercise ordinary care |
| Negligent entrustment | STC entrusted vehicle to a driver with known prior violations/critical events, making misuse foreseeable | STC argued no basis for entrustment liability as matter of law | Denied: a jury could find entrustment reasonable foreseeable given prior violations and reports |
Key Cases Cited
- Boily v. Comm'r of Econ. Sec., 544 N.W.2d 295 (Minn. 1996) (factors for employee v. independent contractor determination)
- Wild v. Rarig, 234 N.W.2d 775 (Minn. 1975) (independent contractor/employee status can be a jury question)
- Larson v. Wasemiller, 738 N.W.2d 300 (Minn. 2007) (framework for recognizing new common‑law torts and reliance on Restatement)
- Ponticas v. K.M.S. Invs., 331 N.W.2d 907 (Minn. 1983) (recognition of negligent hiring/retention in Minnesota)
- Axelson v. Williamson, 324 N.W.2d 241 (Minn. 1982) (definition of negligent entrustment under Minnesota law)
- Lim v. Interstate Sys. Steel Div., Inc., 435 N.W.2d 830 (Minn. Ct. App. 1989) (negligent entrustment as separate wrongful act when driver misconduct is foreseeable)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standard)
- Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (U.S. 1938) (federal courts must apply state substantive law in diversity cases)