Louisville, KY – Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P.A. (QPWB) has achieved a decisive victory in a complex and high-stakes Personal Injury and Wrongful Death lawsuit, successfully securing the dismissal of all claims against its client, a wholesale distribution company. The Plaintiff's initial monetary demand was $150+ million in damages from all Defendants collectively, but the final monetary award granted against QPWB’s client was $0.

Overview of the Case

This case originated from a tragic multi-vehicle accident that occurred on July 10, 2023, in Louisville, KY. The Plaintiff’s wife was stopped in traffic when a commercial box truck leased by the defendant courier and delivery company, and operated by the defendant driver, struck her vehicle from behind at a high rate of speed. Plaintiff’s wife tragically passed away from her injuries following a prolonged hospitalization, and she also suffered the loss of her unborn child.

The Plaintiff, decedent’s widower, initiated extensive litigation, bringing product liability and negligence claims against various co-defendant commercial truck manufacturers and lessors. The total damages sought by the Plaintiff from all Defendants collectively amounted to over $150 million.

Plaintiff brought vicarious liability and negligent selection of independent contractor claims against the wholesale distribution company and its broker. Common law and statutory negligence claims, as well as negligent hiring, training, and supervision claims, were brought against the delivery company, and common law and statutory negligence claims were brought against the driver and sole owner of the delivery company.

Through ample written discovery and dispositive motion, the distribution company’s counsel showed Plaintiff had no evidence that presented a genuine issue of material fact that the distribution company was either an actual or statutory employer, nor principal, of the alleged tortfeasor truck driver, nor his courier and delivery company. It could also not be liable under Plaintiff’s other claim related to negligent selection of independent contractors because it was shown that QPWB’s client was not involved in selecting a contractor to transport the cargo on the truck at the time of the accident. Since all of Plaintiff’s claims depended on proving the opposite, all of Plaintiff’s claims were dismissed with prejudice as to the defendant distribution company. Additionally, the broker’s related Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings was granted, dismissing all of Plaintiff’s claims against it with prejudice.

Key Difference-Makers

• Brandon Sword – Managing Partner
• Johnathan Ryan – Associate

Administrative Support:

• Jolene Upton – Office Manager/Sr. Paralegal
• Candace Sewell – Paralegal
• Ashley Lonowski – Legal Assistant
• Missy Works – Legal Assistant

Claims Made Against Our Client

The claims against QPWB’s client centered on allegations of vicarious liability and negligent selection of an independent contractor.

Plaintiff claimed the defendant wholesale distribution company was the statutory employer, actual employer or principal of both the delivery company and the defendant driver. Because of this, Plaintiff claimed the wholesale distribution company was vicariously liable for the common law and statutory negligence claims against the delivery company and driver. This was based solely on the claim that the distribution company was allegedly identified as the carrier of the cargo on the truck per a Bill of Lading, and as such, it was the “motor carrier” responsible for transportation of the cargo pursuant to 49 USC Section 13901.

Plaintiff claimed the distribution company controlled or had the right to control the manner and means of the delivery company and driver’s work performance, and as such there was a principal-agent relationship and a claim under common law agency.

Moreover, Plaintiff claimed that the defendant distribution company had a duty of reasonable care to contract with and/or hire competent and careful independent contractors and/or motor carriers, including the defendant delivery company, and knew or should have known that the delivery Company failed to possess the knowledge, skill, and experience necessary to transport freight and/or goods without causing an unreasonable risk of injury to others.

Defense Strategy

QPWB's defense strategy relied heavily on extensive written discovery and dispositive motions. This approach effectively demonstrated that the Plaintiff lacked evidence to establish a genuine issue of material fact regarding QPWBs client’s alleged role as an employer or principal of the truck driver or his company. Ample discovery revealed that there was no factual basis supporting a Principal/Agent relationship between the wholesale distribution company, delivery company, and the defendant driver. The defense further established that the distribution company had no involvement in the selection of the contractor responsible for transporting the cargo.

A critical point of contention in the case involved the Plaintiff's reliance on a shipping label found inside the wrecked truck. The Plaintiff erroneously claimed in its Amended Complaint against the wholesale distribution company that this shipping label was actually a Bill of Lading—an entirely separate and distinct legal document used in commercial transportation—and listed the wholesale distribution company as the motor carrier, thus alleging they were a “statutory employer” as defined under federal statute and regulation. QPWB meticulously refuted this argument, demonstrating that this assertion was false, that no actual Bill of Lading was ever produced by the Plaintiff in discovery, and that the shipping label alone was insufficient to establish the claimed employer-principal relationship. The evidence revealed that the distribution company was merely a customer of the broker, who was in turn a customer of the courier and delivery company, and that neither defendant controlled or had the right to control any form of the driver’s work in transporting cargo. The driver himself chose to accept the job as presented by the broker on an electronic portal.

Complicating matters, the broker, a co-defendant, was initially uncooperative in satisfying the distribution company’s lawful tender for indemnification and defense. However, QPWB strategically leveraged their dispositive motion by adopting its advantageous arguments into the distribution company’s own Motion for Summary Judgment. This approach effectively illustrated that if the broker could not be held liable, then QPWB’s client, which was even further removed from the center of liability, should also be absolved.

Impact on Final Outcome

The Court agreed with QPWB's compelling arguments, leading to the Dismissal with Prejudice of all claims against its client, and a related dismissal of claims against the co-defendant. The final monetary award granted against QPWB’s client was $0.

Plaintiff’s counsel did not have an instructive answer when the Court questioned how the distribution company’s involvement differed from an individual sending something via mail and the baselessness of holding that individual liable for an accident involving the mail delivery truck.

The Court was persuaded at oral argument that discovery to date and in the future would continue to reveal there was no genuine issue of material fact for a jury to consider as to the distribution company’s liability. The distribution company was, in essence, twice-removed from the orbit of negligence, and the cited case law supported the theory that the chain of liability had to be cut off with respect to removed actors.

Unique Aspect of the Case

A particularly unique element of the case involved the Plaintiff's claim originating from a shipping label found inside the wrecked truck, which allegedly indicated that QPWB’s client had shipped pool salt to a hotel purchaser in Lexington, KY. Plaintiff erroneously claimed this shipping label was a Bill of Lading.

Predicting the Future

This significant victory underscores QPWB's ability to provide effective and strategic legal representation in complex, high-value litigation. The firm's success in navigating intricate liability claims, dismantling erroneous legal arguments, and leveraging effective strategies to achieve a favorable outcome for its client demonstrates its commitment to securing the best possible results for clients in similar proceedings.

QPWB also provided competent legal representation in a cost-effective manner. Counsel determined and communicated to the broker the need to indemnify and provide a legal defense to QPWB’s client. While the broker was initially resistant, its counsel and QPWB coordinated to secure indemnification for legal fees from the delivery company’s carrier. Although this indemnification question became moot after both parties were dismissed from the case, this acceptance will save the distribution company several thousand dollars. This outcome, along with the dismissal of the case, highlights QPWB's dedication to achieving both legal and financial benefits for its clients.

Key Actions in This Case

• Strategic Use of Discovery: Employed extensive written discovery to disprove Plaintiff's claims.
• Motion for Summary Judgment: Successfully utilized this motion to achieve early dismissal.
• Leveraging Co-defendant's Arguments: Effectively adopted arguments from the broker’s motion to strengthen our client’s defense.
• Effective Oral Advocacy: Persuaded the Court through compelling arguments at oral argument.

About QPWB

Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P.A. is the largest minority and women-owned law firm in the United States. With 48 offices across the country and over 100 areas of practice, QPWB provides comprehensive litigation, regulatory, and corporate representation to clients across a wide range of industries.