JAMES JOHNSON, JR., and ERICKA JOHNSON v. ABF FREIGHT SYSTEM, INC. and MARK EUGENE MASSINGILL

Birmingham, AL - Personal Injury lawyer represented Plaintiffs with alleging that ABF negligently trained, retained, and supervised Mr. Massingill and negligently entrusted a tractor-trailer truck to him claim.

The Johnsons allege that ABF negligently trained, retained, and supervised

Mr. Massingill and negligently entrusted a tractor-trailer truck to him. (Doc. 1-1,

pp. 7–8, ¶¶ 33–42). In Synergies3 Tec Servs., LLC v. Corvo, the Alabama Supreme

Court explained the principles underlying liability for an employer on a negligent

hiring, training, or supervision claim:

"'In the master and servant relationship, the master is held responsible

for his servant's incompetency when notice or knowledge, either actual

or presumed, of such unfitness has been brought to him. Liability

depends upon its being established by affirmative proof that such

incompetency was actually known by the master or that, had he

exercised due and proper diligence, he would have learned that which

would charge him in the law with such knowledge. It is incumbent on

the party charging negligence to show it by proper evidence. This may

be done by showing specific acts of incompetency and bringing them

home to the knowledge of the master, or by showing them to be of such

nature, character, and frequency that the master, in the exercise of due

care, must have had them brought to his notice. While such specific

acts of alleged incompetency cannot be shown to prove that the servant

was negligent in doing or omitting to do the act complained of, it is

proper, when repeated acts of carelessness and incompetency of a

certain character are shown on the part of the servant to leave it to the

jury whether they would have come to his knowledge, had he exercised

ordinary care.'”

--- So. 3d ---, 2020 WL 4913636, at *9 (Ala. Aug. 21, 2020) (quoting Lane v. Central

Bank of Alabama, N.A., 425 So. 2d 1098, 1100 (Ala. 1983), in turn quoting

Thompson v. Havard, 235 So. 2d 853, 858 (Ala. 1970)).

Case 2:18-cv-01835-MHH Document 153 Filed 04/08/21 Page 3 of 6

4

Alabama law on negligent entrustment similarly requires knowledge of the

servant's incompetence:

One who supplies directly or through a third person a chattel for the use

of another whom the supplier knows or has reason to know will be

likely because of his youth, inexperience, or otherwise, to use it in a

manner involving unreasonable risk of physical harm to himself and

others whom the supplier should expect to share in or be endangered by

its use, is subject to liability for physical harm resulting to them.

Pryor v. Brown & Root USA, 674 So. 2d 45, 51 (Ala. 1995).

The Johnsons' negligence claims against ABF fail under Alabama law

because the Johnsons have not demonstrated that ABF knew or had reason to know

that Mr. Massingill was not a competent driver. The evidence in the record shows

that before he began driving for ABF, Mr. Massingill completed a 160-hour driving

school, received his Class A Commercial Driver's License, and passed a road test.

When ABF hired Mr. Massingill, he had no accidents reported in a commercial

vehicle. (Doc. 83-1, pp. 84, 88, 90; Doc. 53-1, p. 10).

About a year and a half before Mr. Massingill's collision with Mr. Johnson,

Mr. Massingill had an accident in a parking lot. He pulled his trailer around a

building and clipped the grill of an unoccupied truck. (Doc. 83-1, pp. 16–17, tpp.

60–61). It is undisputed that ABF learned of that accident shortly after it happened.

The Johnsons argue that "when Mr. Massingill hit a completely stopped truck, that

Case 2:18-cv-01835-MHH Document 153 Filed 04/08/21 Page 4 of 6

5

showed he lacked even the basic competence required to drive,” and therefore ABF

knew that Mr. Massingill was incompetent to drive. (Doc. 123, p. 19). Alabama

law says otherwise.

Under Alabama law, "the incompetence of a driver is measured by the driver's

demonstrated ability (or inability) to properly drive a vehicle.” Halford v. Alamo

Rent-A-Car, LLC, 921 So. 2d 409, 413–14 (Ala. 2005). The Alabama Supreme

Court has held that "[o]ne prior accident, standing alone, is not substantial evidence

of incompetence.” Edwards v. Valentine, 926 So. 2d 315, 324 (Ala. 2005) (citing

Thedford v. Payne, 813 So. 2d 905 (Ala. Civ. App. 2001)) (emphasis in Edwards).

In Edwards, the Alabama Supreme Court explained that the offending driver's one

prior accident "could be considered by the trial court in conjunction with” other

evidence to establish incompetence, but one accident alone was not sufficient.

Edwards, 926 So. 2d at 324 (emphasis in Edwards). Here, Mr. Massingill struck an

unoccupied truck in a freight yard a year and a half before he struck Mr. Johnson's

truck. The Johnsons point to no other evidence of Mr. Massingill's incompetence.

Because the Johnsons have not identified a disputed question of fact regarding

ABF's knowledge of Mr. Massingill's alleged incompetence, the Johnsons may not

present their negligence claims against ABF to a jury. Accordingly, ABF is entitled

to summary judgment on the Johnsons' negligence claims against the company.

For the reasons above, the Court grants ABF’s motion for summary judgment

on the Johnsons’ claims of negligent training, supervision, retention, and

entrustment.



DONE and ORDERED this April 8, 2021.