Stone v. Marten Transport, Ltd.
3:12-cv-00396
M.D. Tenn.Apr 25, 2014Background
- Americold operates a temperature-controlled distribution center in Murfreesboro, Tennessee, with DLS Trucking hired for yard dog tasks at Lot 1 and Lot 2.
- On August 28, 2010, Pittner (Marten/Pittner) backed a loaded trailer from Lot 2 while Stone approached an empty trailer in Lot 1.
- Pittner’s trailer rolled backward; Stone was in Pittner’s blind spot and was struck, suffering significant injuries.
- A stipulation later stated DLS Trucking had 0% fault and that Americold and Marten/Pittner bore the fault for the incident, though others were not parties to the stipulation.
- DLS Trucking moved for summary judgment; Stone did not oppose, but Americold and Marten/Pittner opposed, arguing genuine disputes and standing to contest the motion.
- The court granted DLS Trucking’s summary judgment, dismissed Stone’s claims against DLS Trucking, and declined to enter final judgment under Rule 54(b) at that time.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DLS Trucking was a substantial factor in causing Stone’s injuries | Stone (and thus the defendants) dispute an issue of proximate causation requiring a trial on fault. | DLS Trucking was not a substantial factor; the injury was caused by other defendants or intervening causes. | No genuine dispute; DLS Trucking entitled to summary judgment on proximate causation. |
| Whether Americold and Marten/Pittner have standing to oppose the co-defendant’s summary judgment | Not applicable; Stone is non-opposing, but Americold/Marten/Pittner share a stake in fault allocation. | They have standing to challenge the motion to protect their comparative-fault rights. | They have standing to oppose the motion. |
| Effect of the Stipulation that DLS had 0% fault on liability allocation | Stipulation should not foreclose examining DLS’s potential culpability for fault allocation. | Stipulation binds the issue of DLS’s fault status for purposes of the case. | Stipulation does not unassailably determine DLS’s culpability; merits considered; court grants summary judgment anyway. |
| Whether the court should treat the motion as a Rule 54(b) final judgment issue | Not necessary to address here; final judgment not needed at this stage. | Final judgment may be appropriate in some circumstances, but not required at this stage. | Court will not enter final judgment under Rule 54(b at this time. |
| Whether Americold and Marten/Pittner’s arguments create a genuine dispute of material fact | DLS’s facts are disputed by Americold/Marten/Pittner; there is evidence supporting non-liability of DLS. | DLS’s facts are essentially undisputed; Americold/Marten/Pittner fail to identify contrary evidence. | No genuine dispute; DLS granted summary judgment on the merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Banks v. Elks Lodge of Tenn., 301 S.W.3d 214 (Tenn. 2010) (apportionment of fault and duties in comparative fault regime; nonparties can be evaluated for fault)
- Kilpatrick v. Bryant, 686 S.W.2d 594 (Tenn. 1993) (three-pronged proximate causation test)
- Carroll v. Whitney, 29 S.W.3d 14 (Tenn. 2000) (allocation of fault to immune/nonparty defendants under comparative fault)
- Roe v. Catholic Diocese of Memphis, Inc., 950 S.W.2d 27 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996) (proximate cause and fact-based determinations in Tennessee tort law)
- McDonald v. Petree, 409 F.3d 724 (6th Cir. 2005) (challenging standing and admissibility of co-defendant fault at trial)