Tu v. U-Haul Co of South Carolina Inc
2:18-cv-00734
| D.S.C. | Aug 28, 2020Background
- On October 13, 2016, Plaintiff Kueilin Lu Tu collided with an unoccupied U‑Haul truck parked on the shoulder of I‑26 in Charleston County, S.C.; Plaintiff alleges the truck was parked without exterior lights and that UHNC employee Shawn Smith parked it there.
- Smith had been employed by U‑Haul Co. of North Carolina (UHNC) from Sept. 1, 2016 and was terminated on Sept. 25, 2016 for failing to appear for work; the accident occurred on Oct. 13, 2016.
- UHNC removed the state action to federal court (diversity jurisdiction). Plaintiff asserted negligence and negligent hiring/training/supervision claims against UHNC and Smith.
- UHNC moved for summary judgment arguing (1) Plaintiff was solely at fault, (2) Smith was not an employee at the time and thus UHNC owed no duty, and (3) UHNC was not negligent in hiring/supervising/training.
- Testimony in the record indicated Smith took the truck without permission (i.e., stole it); UHNC submitted affidavits showing Smith was not employed at the time of the accident.
- The court granted UHNC summary judgment and denied as moot pending motions to exclude evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether UHNC can be vicariously liable for Smith’s negligence (respondeat superior) | Smith was an employee/agent of UHNC who parked the truck negligently. | Smith was not employed by UHNC at the time (terminated Sept. 25); therefore UHNC cannot be liable. | UHNC not liable: Smith was not employed at the time; summary judgment for UHNC. |
| Whether acts were within scope of employment | If still an employee, Smith’s operation/parking was related to employment. | Even if employed, evidence shows Smith stole the truck and acted outside scope. | Acts were outside scope (stolen truck); UHNC not liable. |
| Negligent hiring/training/supervision (North Carolina law) | UHNC failed to run a background check and should have known of Smith’s criminal history; hiring a criminal enabled the harm. | UHNC had no duty to run a background check; application statements showed no disqualifying history; no actual or constructive notice of incompetence. | Plaintiff cannot show specific negligent hiring acts or notice of unfitness; claim fails. |
| Appropriateness of summary judgment | Disputed facts require trial. | No genuine issue on essential elements (no duty, no respondeat superior, no negligent hiring). | Summary judgment proper; UHNC entitled to judgment as a matter of law. |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (explaining summary judgment burden-shifting)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (establishing "mere scintilla" and materiality standards at summary judgment)
- Chakrabarti v. City of Orangeburg, 743 S.E.2d 109 (S.C. Ct. App. 2013) (elements of negligence under South Carolina law)
- Armstrong v. Food Lion, Inc., 639 S.E.2d 50 (S.C. 2006) (employer liability requires employment at time of injury and acting within scope)
- Lane v. Modern Music, Inc., 136 S.E.2d 713 (S.C. 1964) (scope of employment test)
- Moricle v. Pilkington, 462 S.E.2d 531 (N.C. Ct. App. 1995) (no general duty to conduct background checks)
- Foster v. Nash‑Rocky Mount Cty. Bd. of Educ., 665 S.E.2d 745 (N.C. Ct. App. 2008) (elements for negligent hiring/supervision under North Carolina law)
- Bannister v. Hertz, 450 S.E.2d 629 (S.C. Ct. App. 1994) (choice‑of‑law guidance)
- Boudreau v. Baughman, 368 S.E.2d 849 (N.C. 1988) (choice‑of‑law guidance)