Trucking Claims and Punitive Damages

 Mississippi law is clear that direct negligence claims (of ordinary, not gross negligence) against an employer are subject to dismissal or summary judgment after a stipulation of vicarious liability.  However, as will be discussed below, punitive damages claims can proceed even after the ordinary negligence claims are dismissed upon a stipulation of vicarious liability. 

 A plaintiff's independent claims for punitive damages against an employer may proceed despite the employer's admission that its employee was acting in the course and scope of employment. Lee v. Harold David Story, Inc., CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:09CV696TSL-MTP at 8-9 (S.D. Miss. 2011) ; Dinger v. Am. Zurich Ins Co., 2014 WL 580889 at 3 (N.D. Miss. 2014). Evidence pertaining to a trucking companies’ independent gross negligence is not superfluous or redundant, as there is no means for a plaintiff to obtain punitive damages against the employer solely through claims against the employee.  Roberts v. Ecuanic Express, Inc., CIVIL ACTION No. 2:12 -CV-84-KS- MTP, at 3-5 (N.D. Miss. 2012).  Mississippi courts have conducted punitive damages analysis regarding negligent maintenance/retention/hiring on the part of a trucking company despite holding that admission of vicarious liability foreclosed direct negligence claims. Gaddis v. Hegler, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59027 at 10-13 (S.D. Miss. 2011).  If the driver in a trucking case is found negligent, the trucking company can be liable for punitive damages on the independent or directly liability claims.  Riggio v. Pruneda, Cause No. 1:18CV218-LG-RHW at 12-13 (S.D. Miss. 2019). 

If derivative liability is established, "other avenues—like punitive damages claims—will provide a route for recovery in the event an employer's culpability exceeds that of its employee's imputed negligence." Dinger v. Am. Zurich Ins Co., at 3 (N.D. Miss. 2014) quoting Wright v. Watkins & Shepard Trucking, Inc., 972 F. Supp. 2d 1218, 1220 (D. Nev. 2013).  Courts have noted that allowing trucking companies to immunize themselves from liability by stipulating to vicarious liability, “overlooks the irreducible proposition that the doctrine of vicarious liability and the tort of negligent hiring and supervision address different conduct.”  Id. at 3.  Further, secondary sources in Mississippi do not address the exact scenario when an employer admits vicarious liability for the employee's actions, but state that "[a]n employer can always be held directly liable for his own negligence in hiring, retaining, or supervising, regardless of whether an employee or independent contractor is involved, since the employer is being held liable for his own negligence and not vicariously liable for the negligence of another." Id. quoting Mississippi Law of Torts § 7:23 (2d ed.).

 The above referenced cases illustrate that Mississippi courts have time and again allowed Plaintiffs to proceed with their punitive damages claims regarding retention/maintenance after the direct ordinary negligence claims are dismissed (due to a stipulation of vicarious liability).  This is because without the punitive damages claims, Plaintiffs would not be able to hold a trucking company liable for negligence in hiring and retaining a dangerous driver or putting a dangerous vehicle on the road.  Should the evidence rise to the level of gross negligence in hiring and maintenance, the law allows for damages that exceed the ordinary damages attributable to the driver’s negligence.