Trucking Company Can't Escape Negligence Action Over Driver's Accident
A trucking company and its founder will remain in federal litigation claiming it is responsible for the alleged reckless conduct of one of its drivers who caused an accident.
October 08, 2018 at 04:50 PM
3 minute read
A trucking company and its founder will remain in federal litigation claiming it is responsible for the alleged reckless conduct of one of its drivers who caused an accident.
U.S. District Judge Michael Baylson of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied a motion filed by defendant Arsenberger Trucking, its founder Robert Arsenberger, and the driver seeking to dismiss two counts of plaintiffs Arthur and Joanne McMahon's complaint.
The lawsuit stems from a 2015 accident in which the plaintiffs were injured when driver Roman Best rear-ended the car driven by Joanne McMahon. The defendants sought to dismiss counts two and three of the complaint, dealing with negligence and punitive damages, for being outside the statute of limitations.
“Taking plaintiffs' allegations in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, as the court must at this stage, the addition of counts two and three is not time-barred because the claims relate back to the same occurrence set forth in the original pleading—the accident,” Baylson said. “Further, the addition of defendant [Robert] Arsenberger as a party also relates back to the date of the original pleading because Arsenberger had constructive notice of the suit as the president, owner, and chief operating officer of defendant Trucking Co., a party to the original pleading. Therefore, plaintiffs' additional claims and the amended claims against defendant Arsenberger personally, including punitive damages, will not be dismissed.”
The defendants also claimed the plaintiffs failed to plead sufficient factual allegations as to the negligent hiring claim, arguing they had not shown the company knew of “Best's alleged propensity to drive in a reckless manner.”
The plaintiffs sought to go after Robert Arsenberger personally.
“Defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claims will be denied. Piercing the corporate veil of a corporation 'is an equitable remedy whereby a court disregards the existence of the corporation to make the corporation's individual principals and their personal assets liable for the debts of the corporation,'” Baylson said.
The judge added, “Plaintiffs do not need to pierce the corporate veil for a jury to find defendant Arsenberger personally liable. If defendant Trucking Co., the corporate defendant, does not have assets to satisfy the eventual judgment, then piercing the corporate veil may become relevant.”
Salvatore A. Clemente of WIlson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker represents the defendants and did not respond to a request for comment.
W. Steven Berman of Napoli Shkolnik in New York City represents the plaintiffs and also did not respond to a request seeking comment.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllGC Pleads Guilty to Embezzling $7.4 Million From 3 Banks
Plaintiffs Seek Redo of First Trial Over Medical Device Plant's Emissions
4 minute readRemembering Am Law 100 Firm Founder and 'Force of Nature' Stephen Cozen
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Sterlington Brings On Former Office Leader From Ashurst
- 2DOJ Takes on Largest NFT Scheme That Points to Larger Trend
- 3Arnold & Porter Matches Market Year-End Bonus, Requires Billable Threshold for Special Bonuses
- 4Advising 'Capital-Intensive Spaces' Fuels Corporate Practice Growth For Haynes and Boone
- 5Big Law’s Year—as Told in Commentaries
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250