Publication Details

Michigan Supreme Court Nixes Employer’s Liability for Disappearing Driver

__________

Article Originally Published: October 2002

The information contained in this article is not intended to be legal advice. Readers should not act or rely on this information without consulting an attorney.

A truck driver is in vehicle accident while on the job. The other driver sues the truck driver and his employer, claiming the employer is liable because of the negligent acts of its employee. Even though the other driver clearly was at fault, the truck driver quits his job, refuses to make any court appearances and disappears.

Is it possible that the truck driver’s noncooperation could make the employer liable, even though the other driver clearly was at fault? Prior to a recent Michigan Supreme Court decision, Rogers v J B Hunt Transport, Inc. the answer was yes.

In that case, an employee driver had parked a tractor-trailer on the shoulder of I- 96 in the early afternoon. The rig was completely off the traveled portion of the highway with the taillights on. An approaching car went onto the shoulder for approximately 75 feet colliding with the trailer, killing the driver of the car.

The lawsuit against J B Hunt and its driver (who no longer worked for J B Hunt), alleged the truck driver was negligent and J B Hunt was liable for its driver’s negligence. Prior to trial, the former J B Hunt driver repeatedly failed to appear for his deposition. On Plaintiff’s motion the trial court defaulted the driver and found he was negligent. Surprisingly, the court also concluded that because J B Hunt was liable for the negligent acts of its driver, it was also prevented from contesting the negligence of its driver at trial. The Michigan Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s ruling.

This holding was of concern because all employers are vulnerable to claims asserted against them based on the negligent acts of employees. The import of the lower court decision was that where an employee does not cooperate in defending a lawsuit, the employer may lose the ability to contest the employee’s alleged negligence, even where the employer has no control over the employee. Under the lower court’s ruling, when a default is entered against the employee, damages would have to be awarded against the employer, being reduced only to the extent the plaintiff was also negligent.

Fortunately, the Michigan Supreme Court eliminated this liability trap by holding that, while a default entered against an employee conclusively determines the employee’s personal liability, it does not determine the liability of the employer. In other words, the employer can still defend by arguing the employee was not negligent. This should help employers (and defense attorneys) sleep a little better at night.

Even though reversed, the J B Hunt case underscores that it is imperative that a cooperative relationship be maintained with a driver employee throughout the course of accident litigation. This can be difficult if the employee has been terminated.

While an employer should not retain an employee who should otherwise be terminated, timing may be critical. If there is litigation pending, or likely, which could impose liability on the employer, the decision of when to terminate that employee should be reviewed carefully to determine whether termination might produce an undesired result in the litigation.