Sparks v. M&D Trucking
301 Neb. 977 (2018)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A company is generally not liable for the negligence of an independent contractor unless it exerts substantial control over the specific means and methods of the work that caused the injury, or if a statutory employer-employee relationship or a motor carrier designation under federal regulations applies to the specific transaction.
Facts:
- Around 5 a.m. on August 28, 2014, Kenneth Bryan Johnson was driving a truck and trailer and failed to stop at a stop sign, striking a vehicle carrying members of the Isom family.
- Gary, Susan, and Tiffany Isom died, and Justin Isom was seriously injured as a result of the collision.
- Johnson had been driving longer than permitted under applicable law, had consumed alcohol less than 4 hours before service, and had a criminal history relating to motor vehicle operation.
- Johnson contracted with Turbo Turtle Logistics LLC (Turbo Turtle) as an independent contractor and was driving a truck and trailer with Turbo Turtle signage.
- Turbo Turtle had a business relationship with M&D Trucking, L.L.C. (M&D) since 2012, with approximately 98 percent of Turbo Turtle's work coming from M&D.
- M&D and Turbo Turtle signed a 'Contract for Dispatch Services at Reduced Rate With Mutual Non-Competition Upon Early Termination by Either Party,' which designated M&D as the exclusive dispatch servicer for Turbo Turtle (with exceptions).
- M&D received a load request from Northern Ag Service, Inc. (Northern Ag) for fracking sand from Genoa, Nebraska, to Blackwell, Oklahoma.
- M&D communicated load information for the Northern Ag shipment to Turbo Turtle, which then relayed it to Johnson, or M&D sometimes communicated directly with Johnson via text messages or phone calls.
Procedural Posture:
- Stephanie A. Sparks, Melanie Crosby, and Nancy Ragains (appellants), as personal representatives of the Isom estates, brought an action against Turbo Turtle Logistics LLC, Kenneth Bryan Johnson, and M&D Trucking, L.L.C. in the District Court for Douglas County.
- Pursuant to a stipulation and joint motion, the District Court dismissed the claims against Turbo Turtle and Johnson, explicitly reserving the claims against M&D Trucking.
- M&D Trucking filed a motion for summary judgment in the District Court, arguing that Johnson was not its employee and M&D did not exert sufficient control to be vicariously liable.
- The District Court granted M&D Trucking's motion for summary judgment on all three claims: respondeat superior, negligent hiring/training/supervising, and negligence per se under federal regulations.
- Appellants appealed the District Court's grant of summary judgment to the Nebraska Supreme Court, and M&D Trucking cross-appealed regarding the release of liability.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trucking company, acting as a broker and having an exclusive dispatch agreement with another motor carrier, exert sufficient control over that carrier's driver to establish an employer-employee relationship or retained control for liability, or become a statutory employer/motor carrier under federal regulations, thereby creating a genuine issue of material fact for trial?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Funke
No, a trucking company acting primarily as a broker did not exert sufficient control over an independent contractor's driver to establish an employer-employee relationship, retained control for liability, or satisfy the definitions of a statutory employer or motor carrier under federal regulations in this specific transaction. The court determined that the material facts were undisputed, allowing for a legal determination. Applying the 10-factor test for employee status, the court found M&D's control over Johnson was limited to the result of the work (pickup/destination), not the means or methods of driving. Communications with Johnson provided load information, not driving instructions. Johnson contracted with Turbo Turtle, not M&D, and Turbo Turtle owned and maintained Johnson's equipment. Johnson was not exclusively bound to M&D loads, and M&D operated a distinct brokerage division. Regarding liability as an independent contractor, the court found M&D did not retain substantial control directly related to the work that caused the injury (driving methods) and lacked knowledge or opportunity to prevent Johnson's specific violations. The contract between M&D and Turbo Turtle did not constitute a lease agreement under federal regulations (49 C.F.R. §§ 376.12, 376.22) because Turbo Turtle and Johnson retained control over the equipment, and M&D did not meet the definition of an "owner" or "lessee." Furthermore, M&D was acting as a "broker" for the Northern Ag load, not a "motor carrier" (49 C.F.R. § 390.5, 49 U.S.C. § 13102(2)). The determinative question is whether M&D accepted legal responsibility to transport the shipment itself. The evidence, including Turbo Turtle's signage on the truck and the police report, indicated Turbo Turtle was the motor carrier. Northern Ag's internal documents listing M&D as the carrier were not dispositive as M&D had no role in their preparation, and Turbo Turtle's involvement was visible. Since M&D was deemed a broker and not an employer or motor carrier for the transaction, it was not liable for negligent hiring, training, or supervision, as it did not have the federal duties to maintain driver records or oversee safety for Johnson.
Analysis:
This decision provides crucial clarity on the distinction between an employer-employee relationship and an independent contractor relationship, particularly in the complex logistics and trucking industry. It reinforces that actual control over the means and methods of work, rather than just the end result, is paramount for establishing an employment relationship or retained control liability. The ruling also meticulously defines the roles of 'broker' versus 'motor carrier' under federal regulations (FMCSA/FMCSR), emphasizing that liability attaches to the entity accepting legal responsibility for transport, rather than just the entity arranging it. This case serves as a guide for parties in commercial transportation to structure their relationships and understand their potential liabilities, highlighting that form (contract terms, external perception) may be less important than the substance of control and responsibility in a specific transaction.
