View Opinion

Horvitz & Levy persuaded the Court of Appeal to reject plaintiffs’ novel theory that a defendant that hires a delivery company must undertake a detailed investigation into the company’s safety record to avoid liability for negligent hiring.

Our client manufactured goods, and had a long-standing relationship with a trucking company to deliver them.  On one occasion, the trucking company’s driver caused an accident, and the injured party sued our client on a theory of negligent selection/hiring and agency.  The trial court granted summary judgment, concluding that a hirer of a trucking company should be entitled to rely on the fact that the trucking company is licensed, registered, and bonded to determine that it can hire the company and use it to transport goods, particularly where, as here, the hirer had been using the trucking company without incident for many years.  The trial court also rejected plaintiffs’ agency theory.  Horvitz & Levy was retained to defend the judgment on appeal.

Horvitz & Levy persuaded the Court of Appeal to affirm the summary judgment.  The court agreed with the trial court’s rationale, noting in part that the trucking company carried significantly greater liability insurance than the amount required by statute.  Our client had no additional duty to investigate the trucking company’s safety record with respect to other customers, without notice of a problem.  The Court of Appeal also rejected plaintiffs’ agency argument because our client did not control the trucking company’s hiring, training, safety practices, or any of its day-to-day operations.