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
© 2025 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 AllPa. Superior Court Rules Pizza Chain Liable for Franchisee Driver's Crash
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Florida Law Schools Are Seeing a Bump in Applications for 2025, After Recent Declines at Flagship Schools
- 2Processes, Challenges and Solutions In Lateral Partner Integration
- 3Attorneys 'On the Move': Herrick Bolsters Tech Practice with IP Partner; Cozen O’Connor Adds Member to Its Fund Formation Group
- 4NJ Jury Awards $4.5M After Woman Trips on Carpet
- 5Blake Lively Is Sued by Texas Crisis Specialist in Latest 'It Ends With Us' Lawsuit
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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