Can You Get Punitive Damages in a Tractor-Trailer Accident?

Posted in Georgia Supreme Court decisions,truck accident on January 8, 2021

A federal district court in Georgia recently ruled that an accident victim’s claim for punitive damages under state law could proceed.

The lawsuit stemmed from an accident in which a tractor-trailer rear-ended Plaintiffs Willie Moore and Martha Moore’s vehicle on Interstate 20 in McDuffie County, resulting in a violent collision.

The Victim’s Allegations

The Moore’s alleged that the truck driver was negligent and breached his duty of care by failing to maintain control of his motor vehicle. In addition, they claimed the semi truck driver:

  • Failed to use due care while operating his vehicle;
  • Failed to drive his vehicle at a reasonable and prudent speed;
  • Failed to remain alert;
  • Drove too fast for the conditions;
  • Failed to exercise ordinary care in the control, speed, and movements of his vehicle;
  • Followed too closely; and
  • Operated the semi while distracted.

The Moore’s alleged that the driver’s employer, a trucking company, was responsible under respondeat superior and directly through its negligent hiring, retention, and supervision of the driver. The Moore’s also filed a direct action suit against the trucking company’s insurance company.

Under the respondeat superior doctrine, when an employee causes an injury to another, the test to determine if the employer is liable is whether the employee was acting within the scope of his employment and on the business of the employer at the time of the injury.

 

Do the Allegations Support Punitive Damages?

United States District Judge Dudley H. Bowen was asked by the driver, his employer, and its insurer to dismiss the Moore’s claim for punitive damages. As far as that claim, the Moore’s alleged that “[t]here are aggravating circumstances present in this case” and that the truck driver and the trucking company acted with “a willful and wanton disregard for the safety of others” and acted “recklessly, willfully, and wantonly and demonstrated a conscious and reckless disregard for the safety of the public, including the plaintiffs.”

Specifically, the truck driver and the trucking company moved to dismiss the Moore’s punitive damages claim, contending that the victims failed to meet the pleading standard articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court. The Moore’s responded that the complaint, when read as a whole, included sufficient allegations to state a claim for punitive damages.

Judge Bowen wrote that a well-pleaded complaint requires only “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” according to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2). The complaint must provide “more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of the cause of action will not do,” he said, citing a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court. “Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above a speculative level, on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful).” As a result, “[t]o survive a motion dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’”

Finally, the judge explained that “[t]he plausibility standard is not akin to a ‘probability requirement,’ but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.”

The truck driver and the trucking company argued that the allegations in support of the Moore’s claim for punitive damages were simply legal conclusions and as such didn’t satisfy the pleading standard. But the judge explained that in Georgia, punitive damages may be awarded in tort actions “in which it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant’s actions showed willful misconduct, malice, fraud, wantonness, oppression, or that entire want of care which would raise the presumption of conscious indifference to consequences,” according to O.C.G.A. § 51-12-5.1(b). Moreover, “negligence, even gross negligence, is inadequate to support a punitive damages award.”

Entitlement to punitive damages focuses on the conduct of the tortfeasor, i.e., what “defendant’s actions” show, the judge wrote, citing O.C.G.A. § 51-12-5.1(b). In this case, Judge Bowen found that the Moore’s contended that the factual allegations regarding truck driver’s conduct (that he drove too fast, that he was not alert, that he was following too closely, that he was driving while distracted, etc.) may prove, through discovery, to be of such a reckless character that punitive damages are warranted.

The Moore’s also pointed out that they already had additional facts not in the Complaint that would tend to show entitlement to punitive damages. For instance, they claimed they could show the truck driver never applied his brakes before or immediately after the crash; that the tractor-trailer truck had defective brakes; and that the tractor-trailer truck had an audible air leak in its air brakes.

But Judge Bowen said the Court can’t consider these factual allegations outside of the pleadings in determining whether the complaint sufficiently states a claim for punitive damages. Moreover, while the “additional” allegations involving the truck driver’s failure to brake may pertain to the truck driver’s conduct while driving, there were no allegations in the Complaint against any Defendant involving defective brakes. In particular, with respect to the trucking company, the Moore’s only alleged that it was directly liable for negligently hiring, retaining and supervising the truck driver. There were no allegations of liability for the provision of a defective tractor-trailer truck. As such, Judge Bowen held that, as the complaint stood, whether the brakes on the tractor-trailer truck were defective in any way didn’t appear relevant to the alleged conduct at issue in the case. However, the judge found that in viewing the complaint in its entirety, it included sufficient allegations to survive the motion to dismiss.

 

Did the Truck Driver act with Wanton Disregard for the Safety of Others?

Judge Bowen held that, assuming that the factual allegations of the truck driver’s wrongful conduct were true—as the Court is required to do at this stage of the lawsuit—it was plausible to infer that the truck driver acted with wanton disregard for the safety of others and that his reckless behavior caused the accident.

As to the Moore’s claim for punitive damages against the trucking company, however, the Court wasn’t persuaded. In addition to the respondeat superior claims, the Moore’s contended that the trucking company was negligent in hiring, retaining, and supervising the truck driver. Specifically, the Moore’s only alleged that the trucking company owed a duty “to hire, retain and supervise employees and agents who are competent and/or suited for the particular employment for which they were hired” and that the trucking company breached that duty.

But the judge said there were no factual allegations in the complaint demonstrating or allowing for the possibility of demonstrating that the trucking company’s conduct in hiring, retaining or supervising the truck driver was malicious, wanton, or reckless. As such, the Moore’s failed to allege a plausible inference for entitlement to punitive damages as it related to their direct claim against the trucking company for negligent hiring, retaining and supervising the truck driver.

Thus, Judge Bowen allowed the Moore’s claim for punitive damages to move forward concerning the conduct of the semi driver in causing the motor vehicle accident, as well as the respondeat superior claim against his employer, the trucking company. The judge noted that in general, “an employer’s respondeat superior liability includes liability for punitive damages if the employee’s wrongful conduct was sufficient to permit such damages.” Moore v. Crawford, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 297 (S.D. Ga. January 4, 2021).

 

Why are Damages Worse When a Semi Truck is Involved?

Accidents that involve big rigs are typically much more serious than car accidents. That’s because of the sheer weight of heavy loads semis carry. Due to a tractor-trailer’s size and weight, a truck is unable to come to a full stop as quickly as a car. This is true even if a semi isn’t carrying a load—it still weighs significantly more than the average car.

A semi with a trailer full of cargo can weigh 80,000 pounds. With this weight, it can cause serious damage to others when involved in an accident. Commercial truck accidents often cause a lot of costly property damage, as well as the severe injuries that can be sustained by accident victims.

 

Takeaway

You should work with an experienced Atlanta truck accident attorney if you’ve suffered serious injuries in a truck accident. Contact Tobin Injury Law, and we will work to get you the compensation you deserve, including compensation for property damage and possibly punitive damages. With our experience and skills, we know what to look for when suing a trucking company.

You can contact an experienced Atlanta truck accident lawyer 24 hours a day, 7 days a week by calling 404-JUSTICE (404-587-8423) or using our online contact form. Tobin Injury Law offers free consultations and will be glad to answer your questions.