Wiedeman v. Canal Insurance Company, 1:15-cv-04182

On August 8, 2014, Plaintiff Gregory Wiedeman (motorcyclist) collided with a truck operated by Walter Patrick Dorn, an H&F Transfer, Inc. employee; H&F leased the truck from Salem Leasing Corporation (Salem).
The investigating officer attributed fault to Plaintiff for failing to yield at a red light; Plaintiff disputes the officer's conclusion.
Dorn was employed, supervised, trained, and controlled by H&F, not by Salem; Salem did not employ or direct Dorn and does not operate as a motor carrier.
Plaintiff sued Salem for respondeat superior, negligent hiring/retention/entrustment/supervision, and negligent failure to comply with motor-carrier safety regulations; he sued Wesco (Salem’s insurer) under Georgia’s direct-action statute, O.C.G.A. § 40-1-112.
Salem and Wesco moved for summary judgment asserting (inter alia) lack of evidence that Salem employed or controlled Dorn and that Salem was a motor carrier; Plaintiff largely failed to oppose on the merits and pursued spoliation sanctions (denied).
The Court granted summary judgment to Salem and Wesco, dismissed both defendants, and denied defendants’ requests for attorneys’ fees under O.C.G.A. § 9-15-14 because that statute does not authorize fees in federal court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Salem is vicariously liable under respondeat superior for Dorn's conduct	Wiedeman contends Salem (owner/lessor) had control/ability to direct Dorn	Salem shows Dorn was employed and controlled by H&F, not Salem; Salem never supervised or trained Dorn	Court: No respondeat superior liability; summary judgment for Salem
Whether Salem is liable for negligent hiring/retention/entrustment	Wiedeman alleges Salem entrusted the truck to Dorn and failed in hiring/supervision duties	Salem did not hire, retain, or know Dorn; no evidence of actual knowledge of incompetence	Court: Summary judgment for Salem on hiring/retention/entrustment claims
Whether Salem negligently failed to comply with federal/state motor-carrier regulations	Wiedeman alleges regulatory violations and industry-standard breaches by Salem	Salem: no evidence it violated regulations; Salem may not even qualify as a "motor carrier"	Court: Wiedeman submitted no evidence; claim deemed unopposed; summary judgment for Salem
Whether plaintiff may proceed in a direct action against Wesco under O.C.G.A. § 40-1-112	Wiedeman joined Wesco under Georgia's direct-action statute	Wesco: direct action requires an underlying viable claim against a motor carrier/insured; Salem not liable here	Court: Because Salem's claims were dismissed, plaintiff cannot maintain direct action; summary judgment for Wesco

Brown v. Who’s Three, Inc., 457 S.E.2d 186 (Ga. Ct. App. 1995) (defines "servant" for respondeat superior as party with right to direct time, manner, methods of work)
Gunn v. Booker, 381 S.E.2d 286 (Ga. 1989) (negligent entrustment requires actual knowledge of incompetence)
Sapp v. Canal Ins. Co., 706 S.E.2d 644 (Ga. 2011) (purpose and scope of Georgia direct-action statutes for motor carriers)
Andrews v. Yellow Freight Sys., Inc., 421 S.E.2d 712 (Ga. 1992) (insurer under direct-action statute functions like substitute surety for carrier's liability)
McGill v. Am. Trucking & Transp. Ins. Co., 77 F. Supp. 3d 1261 (N.D. Ga. 2015) (explaining requirements for direct action against carrier's insurer)
Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007) (at summary judgment, court need not adopt a version of facts blatantly contradicted by record)
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986) (nonmoving party must present more than metaphysical doubt to defeat summary judgment)