Summary
The United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri denies defendants’ motions to dismiss or strike claims arising from a truck-vehicle collision. The court holds that the plaintiff may plead alternative theories, including negligence per se and negligent hiring, training, and retention, at the initial pleading stage despite the employer’s admission of respondeat superior liability. The court also declines to strike the claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f).
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the McHaffie rule required dismissal or striking of negligence per se and negligent hiring, training, and retention claims at the initial pleading stage after the employer admitted respondeat superior liability.
- Whether a defendant driver could obtain dismissal of a direct negligence per se claim against himself based on the employer's admission of vicarious liability.
- Whether the alternative claims should be stricken under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) as redundant or otherwise improper.
Holdings
- The McHaffie rule does not require dismissal of alternative theories of recovery at the outset of litigation. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(d) permits a party to plead alternative and separate claims, and the claims may proceed through the pleading stage.
- The existence of a recognized punitive-damages exception to the McHaffie rule, together with the possibility that discovery could reveal a factual and legal basis for punitive damages, provided an additional reason not to dismiss Counts II and III before discovery.
- The driver was not entitled to dismissal of the negligence per se claim because the claim alleged direct liability against him, not imputed liability against the employer.
- The requests to strike Counts II and III were denied because striking pleadings is an extreme remedy and it was premature to strike alternative theories that were permissible at the pleading stage.
Key quotations
“Procedurally, Fed R. Civ. P. 8(d) permits a party to set out alternative claims and state as many separate claims as it has.” (Section III.A)
“The McHaffie Rule does not prohibit a plaintiff from pleading alternative theories of recovery at the outset of litigation.” (Section III.A)
“Vicarious liability is separate and distinct from a plaintiff's right to plead a negligence per se claim directly against an individual defendant.” (Section III.B)
“Relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) is an extreme remedy.” (Section III.C)
Factual background
Plaintiff alleged that a semi-truck driven by Donald Pugsley collided with the rear of his vehicle. He asserted negligence and negligence per se against Pugsley, respondeat superior liability against Heyl Truck Lines, and negligent hiring, training, and retention against Heyl. The defendants admitted that Pugsley was Heyl's employee, was acting within the scope of his employment, and that Heyl operated, dispatched, supervised, maintained, monitored, and controlled the truck.
Procedural history
Plaintiff filed a diversity complaint arising from a rear-end collision, asserting negligence and negligence per se against the truck driver and respondeat superior, negligent hiring, training, and retention against the trucking company. Both defendants admitted that the driver was the company's employee, acted within the scope of employment, and that the company was subject to respondeat superior liability. Defendants then moved to dismiss or strike Counts II and III under the McHaffie rule. The district court denied the motions, concluding that the alternative theories could proceed at the pleading stage and that the driver could not obtain dismissal of a direct claim against himself based on the employer's admitted vicarious liability.