Levy & Pruett Obtained Summary Judgment for Trucking Company
Court: State Court of Worth County
Judge: Hon. Clarence Miller
Plaintiff’s Attorney: W. Edward Meeks, Jr., Esq.
Defendants’ Attorneys: Susan J. Levy, Levy & Pruett, for Relwof Farms Trucking Company and Hank Pittman for Defendant Garvin Fowler
Alleged Damages: Comminuted leg fracture requiring two surgeries.
Disposition: Summary Judgment granted for Defendant Relwof Trucking Company
Date: August 12, 2011
Plaintiff was injured in an automobile collision with a pick-up truck owned by the Defendant and operated by his farmhand. Plaintiff alleged that the driver of the pick-up truck failed to yield the right of way at a stop sign and that she suffered serious leg injuries as a result of the collision.
The Defendant owned and operated a cotton farm and was also the president and sole shareholder of a trucking company which hauled peanuts, fertilizer, vegetable boxes and military equipment. In an attempt to recover under both businesses' insurance policies, Plaintiff sued the farm and the trucking company. Levy & Pruett defended the case on behalf of the trucking company, the deeper pocket of the two.
There was only one full time employee of the farm, a man whose primary responsibilities included driving tractors, harrowing land, getting the land ready for planting, planting it, keeping it up, and harvesting. In 2007, in order to earn extra money, the farmhand also began working for Defendant’s trucking company. The farmhand was not a driver for the trucking company. Instead, he performed minor servicing of the trucks, such as changing tires.
On the day of the accident, the farmhand worked for the farm the entire day. Nevertheless, Plaintiff argued that both the farm and the trucking should be held liable for her injuries. Plaintiff contended that the fact that the farmhand was paid by the trucking company on the day of the accident demonstrated that he was acting within the scope of his employment on the date and time of the accident. Second, Plaintiff argued that regardless of the respondeat superior issue, Plaintiff could recover against the trucking company under a theory of reverse piercing of the corporate veil, the theory that a corporation can be held liable for the acts of the individual owner.
The trucking company, represented by Levy & Pruett, filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on the grounds that Plaintiff failed to show that the driver was acting within the scope of his employment with the trucking company at the time of the accident and that there was no basis for piercing the corporate veil. The Court agreed and granted summary judgment to the trucking company on August 12, 2011.