Terrell v. Central Washington Asphalt, Inc.
168 F. Supp. 3d 1302
| D. Nev. | 2016Background
- Multi-vehicle crash in the evening on a two-lane highway resulting in injuries and the death of Jon Michael Slagowski; plaintiffs sue three drivers (Hannon, Wentland, Goldsmith) and employer Central Washington Asphalt (CWA).
- Plaintiffs allege direct negligence, negligent entrustment (against CWA), aiding and abetting (drivers and CWA) based on alleged fatigued driving and hours-of-service violations, plus punitive damages and derivative claims (loss of consortium, NIED).
- Goldsmith was asleep/not driving at the time of the crash; Wentland sent a signal to Hannon that it was "clear" to pass; Hannon executed a multi-vehicle pass, encountered oncoming headlights, and continued, leading to the collision; some witnesses dispute Hannon’s timing/positioning.
- Evidence of missing/destroyed logbooks and some pre-accident hours-of-service records; court will instruct jury with a spoliation inference that missing records would have favored plaintiffs.
- CWA conceded potential vicarious liability but contested negligent entrustment and aiding/abetting claims; truck manager Wolfe testified he reviewed timecards and could have been aware of prior long-hours driving.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Goldsmith — direct negligence | Goldsmith part of driver group; responsible for planning | Goldsmith was not driving and was asleep at collision | Granted: summary judgment for Goldsmith on direct negligence and all claims against him |
| Wentland — proximate cause of pass ("all clear" signal) | Hannon relied on Wentland’s signal to begin/pass multiple vehicles | Wentland argues Hannon made independent observations and decision; any signal not proximate cause | Granted: summary judgment for Wentland — signal not proximate cause |
| CWA negligent entrustment — recordkeeping vs. fatigued-driving history | Plaintiffs: CWA failed to keep required records and knew drivers had prior hours-of-service violations -> negligently entrusted vehicles | CWA: missing paperwork is mere recordkeeping; no evidence CWA knew Hannon was fatigued on day, vicarious liability covers employer | Denied in part: summary judgment granted on recordkeeping theory (no causal link); denied on hours-of-service/fatigue theory (genuine issues for jury due to history, spoliation inference, manager knowledge) |
| Aiding & abetting (drivers and CWA) — aiding fatigued driving | Plaintiffs: common plan and conduct (paying for overtime, traveling to reach destination) aided/encouraged fatigued driving | Defendants: mere agreement to drive/knowledge of potential violations not active, knowing, substantial assistance; no direct encouragement or contemporaneous conduct | Granted for Goldsmith and Wentland (no evidence of knowing, substantial assistance); Granted for CWA (no active, substantial assistance); Hannon cannot aid himself — aiding/abetting claims against Hannon denied |
| Punitive damages (drivers and CWA) | Plaintiffs: conscious disregard from plan to exceed hours, dangerous pass, post-accident conduct; employer ratification/non-discipline | Defendants: no malice/oppression; no authorizing/rating; insufficient evidence of managing-agent conduct | Hannon: punitive damages survive summary judgment (jury could find conscious disregard); Goldsmith and Wentland: punitive damages dismissed (claims against them dismissed). CWA: punitive damages survive as to employer based on manager Wolfe’s possible advance knowledge/entrustment (jury issue) |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard and materiality)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden-shifting)
- Turner v. Mandalay Sports Entm’t, 124 Nev. 213 (Nev. 2008) (elements of negligence under Nevada law)
- Dow Chem. Co. v. Mahlum, 114 Nev. 1468 (civil aiding-and-abetting standard in Nevada)
- Bongiovi v. Sullivan, 122 Nev. 556 (punitive damages standard under Nevada law)