Phoenix Attorneys William Nebeker and Scott Pehoushek Granted Summary Judgment in Maricopa County Superior Court
Phoenix Associate Scott Pehoushek, working with Partner Bill Nebeker and paralegal Janelle Nebeker, receives favorable decision from the Maricopa Superior Court, dismissing all claims against KNCH’s client.
Defendant was a plumbing company who provided work trucks to employees for emergency calls. One employee, while not on call during his off-duty hours, took his work vehicle to a friend’s house, where he became intoxicated and ingested a significant amount of drugs. The employee and his friend then took the work vehicle for a joyride and collided with two other vehicles. Plaintiff was the driver of the first of the two vehicles. Unrelated to this accident, the employee had since died prior to litigation. Claims were brought against Defendant for respondeat superior liability on a theory of negligence, agency, and negligent hiring, training, and supervision.
After the deposition of the Defendant’s owner and dispatcher, the Defense moved for summary judgment as to all claims against the Defendant. Plaintiff argued fact issues existed because the owner of the Defendant company had seen the employee drunk before at holiday work parties, that the work vehicles had GPS systems installed that could have been used to track these vehicles after hours, and that the Defendant should have known that this employee would be likely to get into such an accident because of his reputation as a “dumb kid.” Plaintiff conceded there was no evidence to support that the employee was in the course and scope of his employment with the Defendant.
The Court ruled that there was no basis to sustain a claim for negligent hiring, entrustment, or supervision when there was no evidence presented that the employee ever exhibited unsafe driving behavior, or even had any prior discipline or warnings. Further, it found that an employer is not held to a higher standard of supervision merely for the fact that it installs GPS systems in its vehicles. Finally, it found that a reputation of the employee was an insufficient basis for a fact issue when that reputation had no relation to any unsafe driving proclivities. The Court granted the Motion for Summary Judgment in full.