Stroder v. Hilcorp Energy Co., 242 So. 3d 1240

On Oct. 17, 2012, Ryan Stroder, a commercial truck driver for MyVac, was directed to haul drilling mud from a Hilcorp rig; defendants Monty Lanthier, Thomas Stevens & Assocs., and Freddie Grimaldo/Gulf Coast handled supervision and loading.
Stroder arrived in an open-ended dump truck (ordered by defendants) and believed the mud was too fluid to transport safely in that vehicle.
Stroder voiced concerns and offered to retrieve a bottle truck; he alleges he was assured multiple times by defendants’ personnel that the load was safe.
While driving the load, the mud shifted in an S-curve and Stroder’s truck overturned, causing severe injury.
Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing they owed no duty because federal and state regulations place load-securing responsibility on the carrier (driver); the trial court granted summary judgment for defendants.
On appeal the court reversed, holding genuine issues of material fact exist (notably about alleged assurances and Stroder’s inexperience) precluding summary judgment on the duty question; case remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether shippers/rig supervisors owed a duty to the driver for unsafe loading	Stroder: shippers made assurances and thus can be liable for improper loading that was effectively concealed by assurances	Defendants: federal law makes the carrier nondelegably responsible to secure loads; the liquidity was obvious so driver bore the risk	Court: factual dispute (assurances, driver inexperience) makes duty a triable issue; summary judgment improper
Whether federal regs (49 C.F.R. § 392.9) and state adoption preclude shipper liability	Stroder: federal law does not categorically shield shippers, especially where shipper assurances or concealed defects exist	Defendants: federal/state regs put final responsibility on the driver to refuse unsafe loads	Court: federal jurisprudence allows shipper liability where shippers conceal defects or give assurances; regs do not automatically bar plaintiff’s claim
Appropriateness of summary judgment on duty / patent vs latent defect	Stroder: disputed facts (assurances, driver’s limited experience, inability to assess viscosity) create genuine issue whether defect was latent/concealed	Defendants: defect was patent—mud’s liquidity was observable—so no duty and summary judgment proper	Court: whether defect was patent or latent is a question of fact; summary judgment denied because reasonable jurors could disagree

United States v. Savage Truck Line, Inc., 209 F.2d 442 (4th Cir. 1953) (allocates primary duty to carrier; shipper liable for latent defects but not for open and obvious defects absent concealment or assurances)
Decker v. New England Pub. Warehouse, Inc., 749 A.2d 762 (Me. 2000) (shipper cannot force carrier to accept unsafe load; carrier has duty to refuse unsafe loads but assurances can affect liability)
Franklin Stainless Corp. v. Marlo Transport Corp., 748 F.2d 865 (4th Cir. 1984) (even when defect is observable, shipper assurances and carrier reliance can create triable issues on whether defect was effectively concealed)
Jackson v. City of New Orleans, 144 So.3d 876 (La. 2014) (standard of review for summary judgment; de novo review and treating inferences in favor of nonmoving party)