Sparks v. M&D Trucking
301 Neb. 977
| Neb. | 2018Background
- On Aug. 28, 2014, Kenneth Johnson (driving a truck leased from Turbo Turtle Logistics) struck a car, killing three and injuring another; Johnson had prior driving-related offenses and had been driving beyond legal hours and recently consumed alcohol.
- Johnson was engaged by Turbo Turtle (a small logistics/broker company); Turbo Turtle had a contract with M&D Trucking (M&D) under which M&D provided dispatch services and brokered many of Turbo Turtle’s loads.
- For the load involved, Northern Ag (a broker) contracted with M&D; M&D communicated load details to Turbo Turtle/Johnson via texts and calls; the truck displayed Turbo Turtle signage and police listed Turbo Turtle as the motor carrier.
- Plaintiffs sued Turbo Turtle, Johnson, and M&D; claims against Turbo Turtle and Johnson were dismissed by stipulation, leaving claims against M&D for respondeat superior, negligent hiring/training/supervision, and statutory/operator liability under FMCSA/FMCSR.
- M&D moved for summary judgment, arguing Johnson was an independent contractor of Turbo Turtle (not M&D), M&D did not control Johnson’s means/methods, and M&D was a broker (not the motor carrier) for the load; the district court granted summary judgment for M&D and dismissed plaintiffs’ claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Johnson was M&D’s common-law employee | Johnson was effectively controlled by M&D (texts/calls, exclusive dispatch contract) so employer-employee relationship existed | Johnson was an independent contractor of Turbo Turtle; M&D only controlled the end result (pickups/destinations), not means/methods | Johnson was an independent contractor; no genuine factual dispute that would overcome summary judgment in plaintiffs’ favor |
| Whether M&D retained control over work sufficient to incur liability despite independent-contractor status (control exception) | M&D supervised/assigned the load and thus had knowledge/opportunity to prevent FMCSA hours-of-service violations | M&D’s contacts were limited to providing pickup/destination; no supervisory control over means, hours, or operations | No substantial supervisory control tied to the injurious conduct; exception inapplicable |
| Whether M&D was the motor carrier or statutory employer under FMCSA/FMCSR | FMCSR definitions and records (bill of lading listing M&D) make M&D the motor carrier/statutory employer for the shipment | M&D acted as a broker; Turbo Turtle was the licensed motor carrier, displayed its signage, and retained equipment/control | M&D was a broker for this transaction, not the motor carrier; FMCSA-based statutory-employee or motor-carrier liability does not apply |
| Whether M&D negligently hired, trained, or supervised Johnson | M&D failed to ensure safe drivers (no driver records, no background checks) and thus breached duty even if broker | M&D relied on Turbo Turtle as carrier; no duty to maintain driver records for Turbo Turtle drivers; no evidence M&D knew Turbo Turtle’s safety issues | No genuine issue of material fact that M&D negligently hired/trained/supervised; claim dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Estermann v. Bose, 296 Neb. 228 (statutory and common-law principles on summary judgment and employee/independent-contractor analysis)
- Mays v. Midnite Dreams, 300 Neb. 485 (lists factors relevant to employee vs. independent contractor determination)
- Kime v. Hobbs, 252 Neb. 407 (control as chief factor and multi-factor test for employment status)
- Gaytan v. Wal-Mart, 289 Neb. 49 (exceptions to nonliability for hiring independent contractors; control and nondelegable duties)
- Schramm v. Foster, 341 F. Supp. 2d 536 (distinguishing broker from motor carrier; bill-of-lading label insufficient alone to establish carrier status)
- Mass v. Braswell Motor Freight Lines, Inc., 577 F.2d 665 (focus on specific transaction to determine carrier v. broker status)