Commonwealth v. Angelo Todesca Corp.
842 N.E.2d 930, 2006 Mass. LEXIS 37, 446 Mass. 128 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A corporation may be held criminally liable for motor vehicle homicide when its employee, acting within the scope of their employment and on behalf of the corporation, negligently operates a motor vehicle causing a death. This vicarious liability attaches if the employee's conduct satisfies all elements of the underlying criminal offense.
Facts:
- Angelo Todesca Corp., a trucking company, had a written safety policy requiring all its trucks to be equipped with backup alarms at all times.
- Brian Gauthier, a driver for Todesca, operated a dump truck whose backup alarm had been missing for approximately one month.
- Gauthier was aware the alarm was missing and noted its absence each day in required safety reports submitted to the company.
- The company's mechanic knew the alarm was missing but did not have a replacement in stock, and Gauthier continued to operate the truck.
- On December 1, 2000, Gauthier was hauling asphalt for a paving project on Route 28, a state highway open to the public.
- A police officer was assigned to direct traffic at the worksite. Gauthier informed the officer that he was next in line to back up his truck to the paver.
- No one informed the officer that Gauthier's truck lacked a functioning backup alarm.
- As Gauthier slowly backed up, the officer, with his back to the truck, walked into the vehicle's blind spot and was struck and killed.
Procedural Posture:
- Angelo Todesca Corp. was charged with involuntary manslaughter and homicide by motor vehicle in a Massachusetts trial court.
- Following a trial, a jury found the corporation guilty of homicide by motor vehicle but not guilty of involuntary manslaughter.
- Angelo Todesca Corp., as appellant, appealed its conviction to the Massachusetts Appeals Court, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Appeals Court reversed the conviction, concluding there was insufficient evidence of both the driver’s negligence and causation.
- The Commonwealth, as appellant, sought and was granted further appellate review by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, the state's highest court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Can a corporation be held criminally liable for motor vehicle homicide resulting from the negligent actions of its employee acting within the scope of employment?
Opinions:
Majority - Spina, J.
Yes, a corporation can be held criminally liable for motor vehicle homicide resulting from the negligent actions of its employee acting within the scope of employment. Corporate criminal liability is vicarious, as a corporation can only act through its agents. The court rejected the defendant's argument that a corporation cannot 'operate' a vehicle, noting that such logic would preclude corporate liability for any crime. The court held that the established principles of corporate criminal liability from Commonwealth v. Beneficial Fin. Co. apply. The evidence was sufficient for a jury to find the driver, Gauthier, was negligent by operating the truck without a backup alarm in violation of the company's own safety policy, which is evidence of negligence. Furthermore, the jury could reasonably find that this negligence caused the victim's death, as the distinctive sound of a backup alarm could have alerted the victim in a way that other ambient noises, like air horns from other trucks, did not.
Dissenting - Cordy, J.
No, a corporation cannot be held criminally liable in this case because the evidence was insufficient to establish that its employee, Gauthier, acted negligently. The mere happening of an accident is not proof of negligence. Gauthier took all reasonable precautions under the circumstances: he informed the officer he was backing up, he drove extremely slowly, checked his mirrors, and turned off his radio. The absence of a backup alarm, which is not required by state or federal law, is not sufficient by itself to prove negligence. The company's actual practice allowed trucks to operate while awaiting repairs, so Gauthier was not violating company policy by driving the truck. The driver had no reason to believe the officer, whose job was to watch the trucks, would walk into the truck's blind spot, and therefore the evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies and extends the doctrine of vicarious corporate criminal liability in Massachusetts, explicitly applying it to motor vehicle homicide, a crime of negligence. The case establishes that a corporation's internal safety policies, even if they exceed legal requirements, can create a standard of care, and an employee's violation of these policies can be used as evidence of negligence for which the corporation is criminally responsible. This precedent increases the legal exposure for corporations that fail to enforce their own safety rules, as it allows for criminal prosecution of the entity itself for the negligent acts of its employees. It blurs the line between civil and criminal corporate liability for tortious conduct that results in death.
