Moorehead v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc., 1:19-cv-5155-MLB

• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia
• Writing for the Court: MICHAEL L. BROWN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
• Decision Date: 13 December 2021
• Docket Number: 1:19-cv-5155-MLB
• Citation: Moorehead v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc., 1:19-cv-5155-MLB (N.D. Ga. Dec 13, 2021)
• Parties: Mark Moorehead, Plaintiff, v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc. and John Does 1-5, Defendants.

Mark Moorehead, Plaintiff, v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc. and John Does 1-5, Defendants.

No. 1:19-cv-5155-MLB

United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division

December 13, 2021

OPINION & ORDER

MICHAEL L. BROWN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

Plaintiff Mark Moorehead sued Defendants Ryder Truck Rental, Inc. and John Does 1-5. (Dkt. 1-1.) Defendant moves for summary judgment (Dkt. 54)^[1] and oral argument (Dkt. 56). The Court grants summary judgment and denies the request for oral argument.^[2] I Background

A. The Court's Use of Proposed Facts and Responses

The Court uses the parties' proposed facts and responses as follows. When a party does not dispute the other's fact the Court accepts it for purposes of summary judgment and cites the proposed fact and corresponding response. When one side admits a proposed fact in part, the Court includes the undisputed part. When one side denies the other's proposed fact in whole or in part, the Court reviews the record and determines whether a factual dispute exists. If the denial lacks merit, the Court deems the fact admitted so long as the record citation supports it. If a fact is immaterial, it is excluded.^[3] If a fact is stated as an issue or legal conclusion, it is excluded. See LR 56.1(B)(1)(c), NDGa. Where appropriate, the Court modifies one party's fact per the other's response when the latter better reflects the record. Finally, as needed, the Court draws some facts directly from the record. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(3) (“The court need consider only the cited materials, but it may consider other materials in the record.”).

For its factual review, the Court considered Defendant's statement of undisputed material facts (Dkt. 54-1) and Plaintiff's response thereto (Dkt. 62).^[4] The Court did not consider Plaintiff's statement of additional facts (Dkt. 63) because all four proposed facts listed in it are not supported by a citation to evidence, as required by the Local Rules. See LR 56.1(2)(b) (requiring a statement of additional facts to comply with Local Rule 56.1(B)(1)); LR 56.1(B)(1) (explaining that the Court will not consider any fact that is not supported by a citation to evidence). The Court also did not consider Defendant's reply to Plaintiff's response to Defendant's statement of undisputed material facts (Dkt. 69-1). As several judges in this District have noted, the Local Rules do not provide for reply filings in further support of a party's own statement of material facts. See Shenzhen Shenchuang Elec. Appliance Co. v. HauteHouse, LLC, No. 1:20-CV-05337-SCJ, 2021 WL 5033823, at *1 n.2 (N.D.Ga. Sept. 1, 2021); Moore-Tolden v. AirTran Airways, Inc., No. 1:07-CV-1654-WSD-SSC, 2009 WL 10666355, at *2 (N.D.Ga. July 2, 2009), adopted by 2009 WL 10669476 (N.D.Ga. Aug. 28, 2009). And these judges have opted to ignore any such filings. See, e.g., Shenzhen, 2021 WL 5033823, at *1 n.2; Scott v. Novartis Pharms., Corp., No. 1:14-cv-04154-ELR-RGV, 2017 WL 5197875, at *2 (N.D.Ga. Jan. 31, 2017), adopted by 2017 WL 5382139 (N.D.Ga. Mar. 13, 2017). This Court follows suit and ignores Defendant's reply filing (Dkt. 69-1).

B. Facts

Plaintiff worked as a truck driver for McLane Company, primarily in the delivery of food and supplies to restaurants. (Dkt. 1-1 ¶ 8.) Defendant leased to McLane all the trucks and trailers Plaintiff drove. (Dkts. 1-1 ¶¶ 8-9; 54-1 ¶ 1; 62 ¶ 1.)^[5] On October 20, 2017, Plaintiff was working inside a trailer after having made a delivery for McLane. (Dkts. 1-1 ¶¶ 8-9; 54-1 ¶ 1; 62 ¶ 1.) Plaintiff alleges a metal rail used to strap or otherwise secure cargo inside the trailer-referred to by the parties as an “e-track”-came loose from the wall, causing the cargo to fall on him. (Dkts. 1-1 ¶ 9; 54-1 ¶ 2; 62 ¶ 2.) He has a photograph showing the inside of the trailer, the loose e-track, and toppled over boxes. (See Dkt. 64-4.)^[6]He says he was injured in the incident. (Dkt. 1-1 ¶¶ 9, 13.) He also says Defendant was responsible for maintaining the e-track and is thus liable for his injuries. (See generally Dkt. 1-1.)

Defendant does not install e-tracks in trailers or trucks. The truck and trailer manufacturers install them before delivery to Defendant. (Dkts. 54-1 ¶ 3; 62 ¶ 3.) They secure e-tracks to the walls of the trucks and trailers using pop rivets or screws. (Dkts. 54-1 ¶ 3; 62 ¶ 3.) There is no regular maintenance schedule for e-tracks; they are simply fixed when damaged. (Dkts. 54-1 ¶ 9; 62 ¶ 9.) Nevertheless, Defendant had a contractual obligation with McLane to perform preventive maintenance inspections on all trucks and trailers (including the trailer at issue here) about every 90 days and (as part of that) to identify any necessary repairs. (Dkts. 54-1 ¶ 6; 62 ¶ 6.)

Nicholas Kinder, a former employee of Defendant, testified that a problem with an e-track is indicated by a gap between the e-track and the wall, a missing rivet, or a rivet that is “loose and pulled out.” (Dkts. 54-1 ¶ 13; 62 ¶ 13.) When an e-track became damaged, Defendant typically sent the trailer to the manufacturer or some other facility for necessary repairs. (Dkts. 54-1 ¶ 10; 62 ¶ 10.) Sometimes Defendant repaired an e-track itself. (Dkts. 54-1 ¶ 10; 62 ¶ 10.) A properly repaired e-track would be equally secure as a newly installed one. (Dkts. 54-1 ¶ 30; 62 ¶ 30.)

Defendant would typically learn of an issue with an e-track when, first, a McLane driver listed the issue on a daily vehicle inspection report (“DVIR”) and, second, McLane provided the report to Defendant. (Dkts. 54-1 ¶ 14; 62 ¶ 14.) Plaintiff testified that he filled out DVIRs daily, with one copy staying with the trailer, one copy going to McLane management, and one copy being placed in a tray in the drivers' room for transmission to Defendant. (Dkts. 54-1 ¶ 15; 62 ¶ 15.) Plaintiff does not know who gave DVIRs to Defendant, how often they were transmitted, or who at Defendant received them. (Dkts. 54-1 ¶ 15; 62 ¶ 15.) Plaintiff had seen e-tracks broken or loose from trailer walls and noted that damage on DVIRs but does not know whether anyone at McLane provided the DVIRs to Defendant. (Dkts. 54-1 ¶ 16; 62 ¶ 16.) Plaintiff testified he never discussed any problems with e-tracks with anyone at Defendant. (Dkts. 54-1 ¶¶ 16, 18; 62 ¶¶ 16, 18.)

An e-track might become detached from a trailer wall for any number of reasons, including because someone improperly loads or overloads a trailer, overtightens straps connected to an e-track, or drives and turns too fast. (Dkts. 54-1 ¶ 20; 62 ¶ 20.)^[7] One could also be damaged if a load shifts during transit. (Dkts. 54-1 ¶ 20; 62 ¶ 20.) Kinder testified that an e-track would not come off a wall if a trailer is loaded properly and driven safely. (Dkts. 54-1 ¶ 21; 62 ¶ 21.) On October 19, 2017-the day before the alleged incident-McLane disciplined Plaintiff for driving too fast while making a 90-degree turn. (Dkts. 54-1 ¶ 22; 62 ¶ 22.) No evidence suggests this damaged the e-track because, as the Court states repeatedly below, the record contains no evidence from which a jury could conclude how or when the e-track came loose.

The trailer at issue in this case was always in McLane's possession, except when McLane brought it to Defendant for service. (Dkts. 54-1 ¶ 4; 62 ¶ 4.) Pursuant to its contractual duty, Defendant performed a maintenance inspection on the trailer at issue on April 6, 2017 and July 26, 2017. (Dkts. 54-1 ¶ 11; 62 ¶ 11.) After the July inspection, Defendant serviced the trailer on September 8th, September 26th, and October 5th of 2017. (Dkts. 54-1 ¶ 11; 62 ¶ 11.) No. evidence suggests the e-track was loose or malfunctioning at any of these times. Plaintiff was not sure whether he ever saw or reported a problem with the e-track in the trailer at issue here. (Dkts. 54-1 ¶ 17; 62 ¶ 17.)

While at McLane, Plaintiff picked up trailers once they were already loaded, so there was no way for him to see whether the cargo was loaded or secured properly inside the trailer. (Dkts. 54-1 ¶ 26; 62 ¶ 26.) Plaintiff does not know how or why the e-track at issue came off the trailer wall or whether the e-track was still attached to the wall when he began his shift on October 20, 2017. (Dkts. 54-1 ¶ 23; 62 ¶ 23.) Plaintiff also does not know whether bolts or screws were missing or had begun to loosen before the incident. (Dkts. 54-1 ¶ 24; 62 ¶ 24.) In short, the undisputed evidence shows the e-track failed and allowed the cargo to fall on him. But the record contains no evidence as to when that failure occurred, that Defendant should have seen such damage during a contractually required inspection, that anyone reported such a failure on a DVIR, or that Defendant received notice of any issue with the e-track in Plaintiff's trailer before the incident at issue here.

II. Legal Standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 provides that a court “shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). A fact is material if it “might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law.” W. Grp. Nurseries, Inc. v. Ergas, 167 F.3d 1354, 1360 (11th Cir. 1999) (citing Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248). A factual dispute is genuine “if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Id. at 1361 (citing Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248).

The party moving for summary judgment bears the initial burden of showing the court, by reference to materials in the record that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact. Hickson Corp. v. N. Crossarm Co., 357 F.3d 1256, 1260 (11th Cir. 2004) (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986)). The nonmoving party then has the burden of showing that...