Fornari v. Guillen
| Decision Date | 07 June 2021 |
| Docket Number | 4:19-CV-3030 |
| Citation | 596 F.Supp.3d 1235 |
| Parties | Jaime FORNARI, Plaintiff, v. Jose Miguel Figeredo GUILLEN, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Nebraska |
The parties and claims in this complex civil case are numerous, but only a sliver of the case is before the Court now: the counterclaim brought by Beco, Inc. against Jaime Fornari. Fornari moves for summary judgment on that claim. Filing 210. The Court will grant Fornari's motion.
Summary judgment is proper if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The movant bears the initial responsibility of informing the Court of the basis for the motion, and must identify those portions of the record which the movant believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Torgerson v. City of Rochester , 643 F.3d 1031, 1042 (8th Cir. 2011) (en banc). If the movant does so, the nonmovant must respond by submitting evidentiary materials that set out specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Id.
On a motion for summary judgment, facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party only if there is a genuine dispute as to those facts. Id. Credibility determinations, the weighing of the evidence, and the drawing of legitimate inferences from the evidence are jury functions, not those of a judge. Id. But the nonmovant must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts. Id.
In order to show that disputed facts are material, the party opposing summary judgment must cite to the relevant substantive law in identifying facts that might affect the outcome of the suit. Quinn v. St. Louis Cty. , 653 F.3d 745, 751 (8th Cir. 2011). The mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the nonmovant's position will be insufficient; there must be evidence on which the jury could conceivably find for the nonmovant. Barber v. C1 Truck Driver Training, LLC , 656 F.3d 782, 791-92 (8th Cir. 2011). Where the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party, there is no genuine issue for trial. Torgerson , 643 F.3d at 1042.
This case arises out of a terrible traffic accident on eastbound Interstate I-80 near Aurora, Nebraska, involving six tractor-trailer rigs and one passenger vehicle. Filing 211 at 2-3. Specifically, the seven vehicles were:
Filing 58 at 6. Beco alleges that its tractor-trailer "was impacted by the Jeep operated and owned by plaintiff causing damage to the BECO tractor/trailer in an amount to be determined at trial." Filing 58 at 6. Fornari disputes that allegation, and so moves for summary judgment dismissing Beco's counterclaim. Filing 210.
All of the witnesses to the accident were also involved in it, and while their accounts are broadly similar, there is uncertainty on key details. Start with the description in the Nebraska State Patrol investigator's accident report—it sets the stage, even if some of the witnesses didn't fully agree with it. The State Patrol investigator concluded that Figeredo's Soler & Soler truck was driving slowly because of winter weather conditions—everyone agrees the roads were poor on the morning of the accident—and Bookher's Apple Transport rig struck the back of the Soler & Soler trailer. Filing 212-2 at 2. From there, Hotton's Gerry Mercer rig ran into the Apple Transport rig. Filing 212-2 at 2. Fornari's Jeep came to a stop behind those collisions, and according to the accident report, John Lanz's A-Plus rig struck Shelly Lanz's A-Plus rig and then the Jeep. Then Clark's Beco rig, according to the accident report, ran into John's A-Plus rig. Filing 212-2 at 2. The vehicles came to rest, according to the accident report, like this:
?
Filing 212-2 at 2. And that diagram is generally consistent with a photo of the accident scene taken from a nearby traffic camera:
?
Filing 192-1 at 68; see filing 220-3 at 4.
The beginning of the accident report's description of events, at least, is relatively uncontroversial—no one disagrees that the first impact was Apple Transport hitting the back of Soler & Soler. Figeredo didn't remember much about the accident—he just said that he was driving his Soler & Soler rig slowly and something hit his trailer. Filing 212-6 at 10.1 He didn't even see what hit him. Filing 212-6 at 9, 11. But he didn't lose control of his rig—the first collision of the accident was fairly minor—and he just pulled over onto the shoulder out of harm's way. See filing 212-6 at 12, 18. He saw that there had been more collisions behind him, but he didn't actually see any of them occur. Filing 212-6 at 18. And he never saw the Jeep. Filing 212-6 at 18.
Bookher, the Apple Transport driver, described that impact much the same way, although he claimed that it had happened because the Soler & Soler rig braked abruptly. Filing 212-7 at 12. But he admitted striking the back of the Soler & Soler trailer. Filing 212-7 at 12. After that, he felt an impact from behind, then another, and then a third impact to the driver's side of his truck that occurred significantly later. Filing 212-7 at 15, 25. In fact, the third impact happened so much later that Bookher's co-driver, who had been asleep in the sleeper berth, had already woken up and gotten out of the truck. Filing 212-7 at 15; see filing 212-8 at 5-6. Neither of them ever saw the Jeep, even after the accident. Filing 212-7 at 19-20; filing 212-8 at 7-10. Bookher's tractor and trailer ended up in the right-hand lane of the Interstate. Filing 212-7 at 24.
Hotton's Gerry Mercer rig was the next into the pile-up: Hotton said the Apple Transport trailer had come across the road in front of him so he "had nowhere to go." Filing 212-4 at 8. So far as he was aware, the only vehicle he collided with (or that collided with him) was the Apple Transport rig. Filing 212-4 at 11, 23. But he was also "just hanging on" given the situation, and might not have felt a separate impact because he was sliding off the right side of the road into the ditch. Filing 212-4 at 25. The Beco rig eventually came to rest up against the right-hand side of Hotton's trailer, but he hadn't seen it before the accident and had no idea how it had been damaged. Filing 212-4 at 11, 15. Hotton, too, never saw Fornari's Jeep. Filing 212-4 at 8-9.
It's at this point that the parties really begin disputing the facts, most pertinently about when and how the Beco rig became involved. Start with John Lanz, whose A-Plus rig was, at least according to the State Patrol, the next to collide with another. John was driving in tandem with Shelly, who was in the lead, both in the right lane. Filing 212-3 at 8, 10; see filing 192-1 at 13. He saw Shelly braking (she had seen the accident up ahead, but John didn't know that yet) and she had also activated her four-way emergency flashers. Filing 212-3 at 7, 28. John thought he probably had enough time and distance to stop behind her, but it would be close, so he decided to make sure by moving into the left-hand lane. Filing 212-3 at 9-10, 30. That, it turned out, was a mistake: the left lane was icy. Filing 212-3 at 9. So when he hit the ice, and was braking on ice, his trailer started to "dog track" back into the other lane, and it "snagged" Shelly's trailer. Filing 212-3 at 11. Shelly had, by that time, come to a complete stop. Filing 212-3 at 11.
John thought, at this point, that there were three rigs that he was "sliding up to." Filing 212-3 at 14. But that doesn't seem to have included the Soler & Soler rig, which had pulled onto the shoulder ahead—John said he walked around the other rigs after the accident and "they were all damaged pretty good", which wouldn't describe the Soler & Soler rig. See filing 212-3 at 20. And John later said that he hadn't counted the rig "[w]ay up there in front" as being involved in the accident. Filing 212-3 at 23. John also never saw another tractor-trailer pass him from behind. Filing 212-3 at 13-14. In other words, it's entirely possible from John's testimony that another tractor-trailer—Beco's—crashed into the pile before John got there.
John also reported seeing other trucks behind him, one of which was passing the other, and a "little grey vehicle"—Fornari's Jeep—in front of Shelly in the left lane. Filing 212-3 at 10, 20. John didn't see the brake lights or turn signal illuminated on the Jeep. Filing 212-3 at 14. John decided that to avoid the Jeep, he needed to go into the median ditch. Filing 212-3 at 12, 20, 24. He ended up there, against a cement wall. Filing 212-3 at 12, 20....
To continue reading
Request your trial