MV Transp., Inc. v. Allgeier, 2012–SC–000462–DG.

Decision Date19 June 2014
Docket NumberNo. 2012–SC–000462–DG.,2012–SC–000462–DG.
Citation433 S.W.3d 324
PartiesMV TRANSPORTATION, INC., Appellant v. Richard G. ALLGEIER (Executor of The Estate of Barbara Allgeier, Deceased), Appellee.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Recognized as Unconstitutional

KRS 411.184

Gene Frederick Zipperle, Jr., Griffin Terry Sumner, Jason Patrick Renzelmann, Counsel for Appellant.

Bryan Todd Thompson, Scott Coleman Cox, Millicent Ann Tanner, Brian Scott Brownfield, Chad Owens Propst, Counsel for Appellee.

Kevin Crosby Burke, Counsel for Amicus Curiae Kentucky Justice Association.

Opinion of the Court by Justice VENTERS.

Appellant, MV Transportation, Inc., (MV) appeals from an opinion of the Court of Appeals that, as relevant here: 1) affirmed a jury verdict awarding compensatory damages for injuries Barbara Allgeier (Allgeier) sustained as a passenger on an MV bus; and 2) reversed a summary judgment by which the trial court had dismissed Allgeier's claim for punitive damages.1

As grounds for relief, MV contends the Court of Appeals erred by affirming two evidentiary rulings of the trial court relating to the bus driver's past alcoholism and by reinstating Allgeier's punitive damages claim. MV further asserts, in the alternative, that even if the punitive damage claim was properly reinstated, the Court of Appeals erred by remanding the case for trial upon the issue of punitive damages alone, rather than, in addition, a complete retrial upon all issues presented in the original trial. For the reasons explained below, we affirm the opinion of the Court of Appeals.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In our review of the trial court's award of summary judgment dismissing Allgeier'sclaim for punitive damages, we are required to view the evidence, and any reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the evidence, in the light most favorable to Allgeier, the party opposing summary judgment. Steelvest v. Scansteel Serv. Ctr., Inc., 807 S.W.2d 476, 480 (Ky.1991). Viewed accordingly, the facts are as follows.

MV operates the TARC 3 paratransit bus service in Louisville for the Transportation Authority of River City (TARC). A paratransit bus is a bus specially equipped with a lift to enable wheelchair-bound passengers to safely board and safely exit the bus. In 2006, Barbara Allgeier was a sixty-five year-old frequent passenger of MV's paratransit bus who used a wheelchair as a consequence of multiple sclerosis.

On a frigid day in December of 2006, Allgeier was returning home on an MV bus driven by Wilma Caldwell. The bus arrived at Allgeier's stop at approximately 5:00 p.m. Caldwell stopped the bus and initiated the routine procedures to operate the wheelchair lift for Allgeier. When the lift is properly operated a steel plate shifts into position bridging the gap between the floor of the bus and the floor of the lift so that a wheelchair can roll onto the lift. On this occasion, the plate was misaligned, and instead of facilitating access onto the lift, the plate obstructed it.

When disembarking, wheelchair-bound passengers are ordinarily unable to see the plate as they transition onto the lift, and therefore must depend upon cues from the driver to safely navigate onto the apparatus. MV's company policy explicitly requires drivers to assist wheelchair passengers as they negotiate their way onto the lift. On this occasion Caldwell failed to warn Allgeier that her access onto the lift was obstructed by the misaligned plate. As Allgeier attempted to roll onto the lift, the wheelchair hit the obstruction and, tipped over. After this, Allgeier and her wheelchair were suspended in midair by the safety strap attaching the chair to the lift; Allgeier, at the same time, was held in the wheelchair by a safety belt. Caldwell reacted by releasing Allgeier's safety belt, causing Allgeier to fall out of the chair. She landed on the lift, which had by then been lowered, with such force that the femur of each of her legs splintered, causing extraordinary pain.

Instead of calling immediately for emergency medical assistance, Caldwell first contacted her MV dispatcher, as she had been trained to do. The dispatcher then notified MV supervisors Ronald Coleman and Leonard Rowe about the accident. Neither Caldwell, the MV dispatcher, Coleman, nor Rowe, immediately called for emergency assistance. Instead, Coleman and Rowe drove to the scene of the mishap, arriving there about fifteen or twenty minutes after the accident occurred. Some twenty-two minutes after Allgeier's fall, the first call was made for emergency medical services. Even then, MV personnel minimized the urgency of the situation by informing the emergency medical service that Allgeier was only experiencing “back pain.” Consequently, the emergency paramedics did not respond with typical urgency; they arrived about 40 minutes after the injury.

All the while Allgeier was lying in intense pain on the metal lift in sub-freezing weather covered only with a thin blanket that had been brought to her by a nearby resident. The evidence presented at trial disclosed that upon their arrival Rowe and Coleman paid little attention to Allgeier's plight, and instead busied themselves with taking pictures and sequestering Caldwell from any inquiries about the incident. The police were never contacted and did not otherwise arrive to conduct any kind of investigation of the mishap.

The evidence also indicated that MV trained its employees to guard against “fraudulent and excessive liability claims” by promptly photographing any accident scene. In furtherance of this objective, MV directed its supervisors to go immediately to an accident scene and take control as quickly as possible. MV's training material instructed drivers that [u]nder no circumstances should you admit or acknowledge blame” for an accident.

As a result of her injuries, Allgeier was immobile for 225 days and remained, first in a hospital and then in a convalescence facility, for a considerable length of time. In contrast to the active lifestyle she maintained prior to the accident, afterwards she remained totally dependent on others for personal care and hygiene, and was unable to leave her home.

From the evidence presented at trial, a jury could reasonably conclude that Caldwell had substantially departed from the protocol established by MV's driver training manuals for safely unloading a wheelchair passenger, and MV essentially concedes that Caldwell was negligent in that regard. Allgeier also presented evidence indicating that MV's supervisors were lax in their training and enforcement of written safety policies. For example, MV supervisor Billy Grice testified that he did not instruct his driver-trainees in strict accordance with MV's written procedures, and that other trainers also failed to instruct on proper safety procedures. He testified that it was not “vital to go word for word” by MV's published policies. Throughout the trial several violations of company policies were identified and acknowledged by MV.

Evidence, which MV challenges as improperly admitted, also indicated that Caldwell was an alcoholic living in a rehabilitation facility in August of 2006 when she was hired by MV as a driver. Other evidence demonstrated that Caldwell had lied on her employment application about her alcoholism, and that she deceptively listed the facility's address as her home. Citing to MV's zero-tolerance policy, Rowe and Grice stated they would not have hired Caldwell had they known she was an alcoholic. Although MV's protocol generally requires that drivers involved in accidents be tested within two hours for alcohol consumption, more than two-and-a-half hours passed before Caldwell was tested; the test results were negative. Because the police were never called, no alcohol testing was done at the scene. Significantly, it was not alleged, and there was no evidence to indicate, that alcohol consumption played any role in the accident.

In November 2007 Allgeier filed suit against MV, alleging that her injury was caused by Caldwell's gross and ordinary negligence for which MV was liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior. Allgeier also asserted that her injuries were caused by MV's own gross and ordinary negligence in the hiring, training, supervision, or retention of Caldwell.

Prior to trial, the trial court granted MV's motion for summary judgment on Allgeier's punitive damages claim. After a six-day trial, the jury found that MV was vicariously liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for Caldwell's negligence in causing Allgeier's injuries. The jury also found MV liable for its own, independent negligence “in hiring, training, supervising, or retaining its employee driver, Wilma Caldwell, and that this failure was a substantial factor in causing Barbara Allgeier's injuries.” Allgeier was awarded medical expenses in the sum of $74,630.28, and $4,100,000.00 as compensation for past, present, and future pain and suffering. The jury apportioned no fault to Allgeier. Allgeier then appealed the summary judgment dismissal of her punitive damage claim, and MV cross-appealed from the trial judgment awarding compensatory damages.

On discretionary review MV challenges the Court of Appeals' conclusion that the trial court improperly granted summary judgment dismissing Allgeier's punitive damage claim and the remand ordered by the Court of Appeals for a trial only upon the issue of punitive damages. MV also contends that the Court of Appeals should have reversed the trial judgment awarding compensatory damages because of error in admitting evidence of Caldwell's alleged alcoholism and mental health issues.

II. EVIDENCE OF CALDWELL'S ALCOHOLISM WAS PROPERLY ADMITTED AS IMPEACHMENT EVIDENCE AND MV'S BROADER OBJECTION TO THE EVIDENCE WAS NOT ADEQUATELY PRESERVED

Prior to trial, MV filed a motion in limine to exclude any evidence that Caldwell had been treated in the past for alcoholism, depression, and anxiety. MV specifically challenged...

To continue reading

Request your trial
72 cases
  • Werner Enters. v. Blake
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • 18 Mayo 2023
    ...Green, 202 N.E.3d 268, 277-80 (Ill. 2022); Marquis v. State Farm Fire & Cas., 961 P.2d 1213, 1224-25 (Kan. 1998); MV Transp. v. Allgeier, 433 S.W.3d 324, 333-37 (Ky. 2014); James v. Kelly Trucking Co., 661 S.E.2d 329, 631-34 (S.C. 2008); Ramon v. Nebo Sch. Dist., 493 P.3d 613, 618-21 (Utah ......
  • Ferrer v. Okbamicael
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • 27 Febrero 2017
    ...retention are "negligence separate and distinct from negligence of the driver whose action caused the injury"); MV Transp., Inc. v. Allgeier , 433 S.W.3d 324, 335–36 (Ky. 2014) (following James and adopting the "non-preemption rule"); Jones v. Windham , No. W2015-00973-COA-R10-CV, 2016 WL 9......
  • PBI Bank, Inc. v. Signature Point Condos. LLC
    • United States
    • Kentucky Court of Appeals
    • 2 Diciembre 2016
    ...at common law, and have been part of the fabric of Anglo–American and Kentucky jurisprudence for centuries." MV Transp., Inc. v. Allgeier , 433 S.W.3d 324, 337 (Ky. 2014). "Such damages are given to the plaintiff over and above the full compensation for his injuries, for the purpose of puni......
  • McQueen v. Green
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • 21 Abril 2022
    ...that McHaffie represents the majority view, the caselaw throughout the country is more evenly divided. See MV Transportation, Inc. v. Allgeier , 433 S.W.3d 324, 334 (Ky. 2014) (noting that the "authorities are split on whether a separate negligent hiring claim should go forward when an empl......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • The Litigation Landscape of Fraternity and Sorority Hazing: Criminal and Civil Liability
    • United States
    • University of Nebraska - Lincoln Nebraska Law Review No. 99, 2021
    • Invalid date
    ...G. Mathiason & Mark A. de Bernardo, The Emerging Law of Training, 45 FED. L., May 1998, at 24, 28-29. [309] MV Transp., Inc. v. Allgeier, 433 S.W.3d 324, 334 (Ky. [310]Id. [311]Id. "[I]t has been held that the rule that negligent hiring and respondeat superior are mutually exclusive theorie......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT