Short v. Marvin Keller Trucking, Inc.
| Decision Date | 04 October 2021 |
| Docket Number | 5:19-CV-471-MAS |
| Citation | 570 F.Supp.3d 459 |
| Parties | Joy SHORT, as Administratix of the Estate of Christopher Short, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MARVIN KELLER TRUCKING, INC., et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Kentucky |
David Michael Scott, Jonathan Heck, Isaacs & Isaacs, P.S.C., Louisville, KY, for Plaintiffs.
Matthew Bowman Gay, Boehl, Stopher & Graves, Louisville, KY, for Defendants.
This negligence action arose from a fatal traffic collision on Interstate 64. Defendant John Walls ("Walls") lost control of his tractor trailer, owned and operated by Defendant Marvin Keller Trucking, Inc. ("Keller Trucking"), causing it to cross over the median and strike Christopher Short ("Short"). Short did not survive the collision.
Joy Short, as Administratix of the Estate of Christopher Short ("Estate"), asserted claims sounding in negligence and negligence per se against Short and Keller Trucking ("Defendants"). The Estate also asserted claims of negligent hiring, retention, supervision, and training against Keller Trucking. Finally, Joy Short and her two minor sons asserted claims of spousal and parental consortium, respectively, against Defendants. Defendants have filed motions for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the Estate's claims against Defendants. Additionally, Defendants seek to prohibit the Estate from seeking pain and suffering as part of its negligence-based claims. As the motions are fully briefed, the Court addresses the dispositive motions below.
On March 13, 2019, Short was operating a pick-up truck on behalf of Kentucky Utilities and traveling westbound on Interstate 64 in Bath County, Kentucky. [Docket Entry ("DE") 48-1, Page ID# 206-210 (Kentucky Uniform Polic Traffic Collision Report)]. Walls, operating a tractor trailer on behalf of Keller Trucking, was travelling eastbound. [Id. ]. Walls, for reasons heavily disputed and detailed below, lost control of his tractor trailer and crossed the median of Interstate 64 as Short's truck approached at a high speed in the opposite direction. [Id. ]. Short saw the tractor trailer approaching, applied the brakes, and attempted evasive maneuvers. [Id. ]. These efforts were unsuccessful as the tractor trailer impacted the truck nearly head on with the front of the tractor trailer impacting the front left bumper of Short's truck. [DE 48-1, Page ID# 206-210 (Kentucky Uniform Polic Traffic Collision Report)]. Short died immediately upon impact. [DE 57, Page ID# 1355]. Short's truck came to rest at the base of tree on the west side of the interstate while the tractor trailer turned on its side further back. [Id. ]. Short was pronounced dead on the scene while Walls was transported to the local hospital for treatment of his injuries. [Id. ].
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) ; see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317, 322–23, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986) ; FTC v. E.M.A. Nationwide, Inc. , 767 F.3d 611, 629 (6th Cir. 2014). A genuine dispute over issues of material fact exists when "there is sufficient evidence favoring the nonmoving party for a jury to return a verdict for that party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 249, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). The key question is "whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law." Id. at 251–52, 106 S.Ct. 2505 ; see also Harrison v. Ash , 539 F.3d 510, 516 (6th Cir. 2008).
The party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of demonstrating that no genuine issue of material fact exists. Chao v. Hall Holding Co. , 285 F.3d 415, 424 (6th Cir. 2002) (citing Celotex Corp. , 477 U.S. at 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548 ). If that burden is met, the nonmoving party must then present sufficient evidence from which a jury could find for it. Harrison , 539 F.3d at 516 (citing Anderson , 477 U.S. at 252, 106 S.Ct. 2505 ). In doing so, the nonmoving party "must do more than simply show there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts." Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp. , 475 U.S. 574, 586, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). In general, at the summary judgment stage the Court views all facts and inferences drawn from the evidence "in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party." Black v. Pension Ben. Guar. Corp. , 983 F.3d 858, 862 (6th Cir. 2020) (citing Morehouse v. Steak N Shake , 938 F.3d 814, 818 (6th Cir. 2019) ).
To prevail on a negligence claim under Kentucky law, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant: 1) owed the plaintiff a duty of care; 2) the defendant breached the standard of care by which his or her duty is measured; and 3) that the breach was the legal causation of the consequent injury.
Pathways, Inc. v. Hammons , 113 S.W.3d 85, 88–89 (Ky. 2003) ; Wright v. House of Imports, Inc. , 381 S.W.3d 209, 213 (Ky. 2012). The element of duty is a question of law for the court to decide, breach and injury are questions of fact for the jury to decide, and causation is a mixed question of law and fact. Pathways, Inc. , 113 S.W.3d at 89 (citing Deutsch v. Shein , 597 S.W.2d 141, 145 (Ky. 1980) ). To prevail on their motion for summary judgment, therefore, Defendants must establish that there is a complete "absence of evidence," that Walls owed a duty to Short, that Walls breached that duty, and that his breach was a substantial cause of the accident.1 Celotex Corp. , 477 U.S. at 323–25, 106 S.Ct. 2548. If, however, there is any genuine dispute as to any material fact concerning the elements of duty, breach, and causation, such that a reasonable jury could find that Walls was negligent, the Court cannot grant summary judgment to the movants. Anderson , 477 U.S. at 249, 106 S.Ct. 2505.
According to the Estate, the accident in question occurred because Walls was knowingly ill and/or fell asleep and lost control of the tractor trailer. Specifically, in the weeks prior to the accident, Walls was treated for acute bronchitis, including symptoms such as coughing, shortness of breath, and fatigue. [DE 55, Page ID# 676-77]. Moreover, Walls long suffered from chronic fatigue. [Id. at Page ID# 679]. On the date of the accident, Walls initially only drove forty miles before stopping for a nap to rest. [Id. ]. He then drove for forty-five additional minutes before stopping for another rest break. [Id. at Page ID# 680]. In-cab video shows show Wall swerving out of the travel lane only seconds prior to the accident. [Id. at Page ID# 681]. Following the accident, Walls originally told first responders that he "fell asleep." [Id. at Page ID# 680]. He later told representative of Keller Trucking that he lost consciousness after using his inhaler and coughing. [Id. ]. Regardless, the Estate relies upon these various facts and expert opinions to contest summary judgment.
Defendants do not, as part of the limited motion practice, contest some of the facts set forth by the Estate. Rather, Defendants contend that Walls lost consciousness due to a cough syncope. Per Defendants, a cough syncope "is defined as a temporary loss of consciousness that occurs while coughing with spontaneous return to baseline function." [DE 52, Page ID# 631 n. 3]. The cough was caused, per Walls, when he took a dose from his Albuterol inhaler, prescribed to him based upon a recent diagnosis of bronchitis. [Id. at Page ID# 632]. Such a rare and unprecedented event, Defendants argue, was not foreseeable. Based upon these facts, the Defendants contend summary judgment is appropriate.
The parties, without question, come armed to battle over the true cause and foreseeability of the accident and, thus, the negligence of Defendants, if any. Both have submitted extensive and detailed primary evidence as well as the opinions of experts in support of their respective positions. Having considered the evidence presented, Defendants have not met their burden of showing that summary judgment on the claim of negligence is proper. Viewing all the facts and inferences drawn from the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant, the Estate has raised a genuine issue of material fact regarding, at a minimum, the cause or foreseeability of the accident. Specifically, a reasonable juror could find that Walls, and consequently Keller Trucking, could have reasonably foreseen his loss of consciousness due to his acute illness at the time of the accident and chronic fatigue, noting that Walls admitted he fell asleep in the moments following the accident. Although Defendants disagree and have experts to discuss their theory of causation, such conflicting testimony and theories "present[ ] a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury." Anderson , 477 U.S. at 251–52, 106 S.Ct. 2505.
Accordingly, it is the opinion of this Court that the Estate has demonstrated a genuine issue of material fact for the jury as to the negligence of Defendants.
The negligence per se doctrine has been codified in Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. ("KRS") § 446.070, which provides that "[a] person injured by the violation of any statute may recover from the offender such damages as he sustained by reason of the violation, although a penalty or forfeiture is imposed for such violation." See also Vanhook v. Somerset Health Facilities, LP , 67 F. Supp. 3d 810, 817 (E.D. Ky. 2014) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial