Court Opinion

ID: 9743099
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:25:30.431574+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:39.275790
License: Public Domain

MR. JUSTICE RYAN, dissenting: I cannot agree with the majority’s pronouncement that a “carrier-lessee [is] vicariously responsible to the public for the negligent operation of the leased vehicle without regard to whether at the time in question it was being used in the business of the lessee.” In my opinion, this conclusion is not supported by the Interstate Commerce Act or the relevant Interstate Commerce Commission regulations. The majority relies heavily upon 49 U.S.C. sec. 304(e)(2) to support its holding that a carrier-lessee’s liability for negligence attaches without regard to whether at the time of a driver’s negligent conduct the vehicle was being used in the lessee’s business. That part of section 304(e)(2) relied on by the majority reads as follows: “[T] he Commission is authorized to prescribe *** (2) such other regulations as may be reasonably necessary in order to assure that while motor vehicles are being so used the motor carriers will have full direction and control of such vehicles and will be fully responsible for the operation thereof ***.” However, it is significant to point out that the majority failed to note a qualifying phrase of that section of the Act, italicized below, which plainly limits and circumscribes the responsibility of the carrier insofar as the leased vehicle is concerned. The quotation with the omitted phrase is as follows: “[T] he Commission is authorized to prescribe *** (2) such other regulations as may be reasonably necessary in order to assure that while motor vehicles are being so used the motor carriers will have full direction and control of such vehicles and will be fully responsible for the operation thereof *** as if they were the owners of such vehicles **'*.” (Emphasis added.) (49 U.S.C. sec. 304(e)(2).) Clearly, the italicized phrase was intended to define the limits of the authority of the Interstate Commerce Commission to prescribe by regulation the extent of a carrier’s liability. However, the import of the majority decision, which apparently imposes absolute responsibility upon the lessee for all damages occasioned by the operation of the vehicle during the term of a lease, is contrary to the intent manifested by the Act. I do not dispute that traditional concepts of respondeat superior do not prevail in such cases or that the Act and regulations of the Commission have broadened the responsibility of a carrier-lessee. However, even under the theory of broadened and expanded responsibility there still must be found some nexus between the use of the vehicle at the time of the accident out of which the claim arose and the business of the carrier-lessee. An analysis of the cases discussed, and in my opinion misinterpreted, by the majority bears out this conclusion. The majority relies on Cosmopolitan Mutual Insurance Co. v. White (D. Del. 1972), 336 F. Supp. 92, in support of its holding that a carrier-lessee’s liability for negligent conduct of a driver attaches without regard to whether at the time in question the leased vehicle was being used in the business of the lessee. Quite frankly, I find the majority’s reliance on Cosmopolitan difficult to understand, since in that case the court found that at the time in question the leased vehicle was being used in furtherance of the defendant carrier’s business. In Cosmopolitan, a driver of a truck owned by the lessor and leased to the defendant carrier was involved in an accident caused by his alleged negligent conduct. At the time of the accident, the driver was hauling a load for another carrier, since his services were not needed by the carrier-lessee. At the particular time in issue, the driver was en route to an overnight destination where he had planned to stay before picking up the load for the other carrier on the following morning. The court held, however, that the driver’s actions “were certainly in [the carrier-lessee’s] business.” (336 F. Supp. 92, 99.) The court noted that the practice of hauling loads for other carriers was “an incidental function necessary to accomplish the primary purpose of *** [having] available [to the lessee] the requisite vehicular equipment to carry on its business.” (336 F. Supp. 92, 99.) The finding by the court that the driver was on the business of the carrier-lessee was an important one as regards the ultimate decision that it was responsible for the driver’s negligence. Without such a finding by the majority today, its reliance on Cosmopolitan is questionable. Simmons v. King (5th Cir. 1973), 478 F.2d 857, and Mellon National Bank & Trust Co. v. Sophie Lines, Inc. (3d Cir. 1961), 289 F.2d 473, both cited by the majority, were two cases which expanded the liability of carrier-lessees beyond that of the traditional limitations prescribed by respondeat superior. Once again, however, it is significant to point out that in both cases the respective courts found that the drivers were on the business of the carriers at the time of their alleged negligent conduct. In Simmons there was little question that the driver was on the lessee’s business, since at the time of the negligent conduct the driver was hauling a load of sugar for the defendant carrier. In Mellon the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that there was a conclusive presumption that the driver was on the defendant carrier’s business when he was hauling lumber for another carrier. The court noted that the defendant had profited from the practice of hauling loads for other carriers where trucks had carried loads en route to pick up defendant’s freight. Thus, while the court declined to apply the rigid concept of respondeat superior, it still found that the driver was on the business of the carrier under the broad language of the ICC leasing arrangement. However, there is nothing in that case, nor in Simmons for that matter, that supports the contention that an effectual leasing arrangement imposes liability upon the lessee regardless of whether at the time of a driver’s negligent conduct the vehicle in question is being used in the business of the lessee. In addition to the cases cited by the majority, my own research has found no case in which the court has applied an absolute-responsibility rule under the Act and regulations. See, e.g., Allstate Insurance Co. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. (3d Cir. 1966), 368 F.2d 121; Felbrant v. Able (1963), 80 N.J. Super. 587, 194 A.2d 491; Duke v. Thomas (Mo. App. 1961), 343 S.W.2d 656; and Gackstetter v. Dart Transit Co. (1964), 269 Minn. 146, 130 N.W.2d 326. Gackstetter v. Dart Transit Co. is a case very similar to the one before us today. In Gackstetter, a driver was involved in an accident while driving a truck leased to a carrier-lessee under an ICC leasing arrangement. The Supreme Court of Minnesota, noting that at the time of the accident the driver was on a purely personal pursuit, found that the carrier-lessee could not be held liable even though the vehicle in question was being used with its permission. I think the reasoning of Gackstetter is persuasive. The appellate court applied the public-franchise doctrine as expressed in Restatement (Second) of Torts section 428 (1965). In this court, both the appellant and the appellee raised arguments concerning its applicability. However, except for noting that the appellate court recognized the applicability of this doctrine, the majority makes no reference to it. Section 428 of the Restatement provides: “An individual or corporation carrying on an activity which can be lawfully carried on only under a franchise granted by public authority and which involves an unreasonable risk of harm to others, is subject to liability for physical harm caused to such others by the negligence of a contractor employed to do work in carrying on the activity. ” (Emphasis added.) It cannot be said that this public-franchise doctrine does not apply to motor carriers operating under Interstate Commerce Commission permits and subject to its regulations because the reporter’s notes to section 428 in Restatement (Second) of Torts (Appendix) list more than 40 cases in both the Federal and State courts wherein the courts, in deciding motor carrier cases, have applied or considered the public-franchise doctrine as stated in the Restatement. It should be noted that the last phrase of section 428, which has been italicized as quoted above, limits the liability of the one carrying on the activity to negligent acts “in carrying on the activity” of the carrier. This does not necessarily mean the same as “in the course of his employment,” but at least the conduct must have occurred while the one employed was performing some act in the furtherance of the carrier’s business. This is the import of every case I have read concerning the responsibility of certificated carriers, none of which employ the theory espoused by the majority that a carrier who fails to comply with the regulations concerning surrender of possession and removal of the carrier’s legend (49 C.F.R. secs. 1057.4(d) and 1057.4(d)(1)) assumes absolute responsibility for the leased vehicle. The presence of the carrier’s legend on the vehicle at the time of the accident at most would constitute some evidence that the vehicle was being used in the furtherance of the carrier’s business. However, in his deposition in this case, Dixon (the owner-driver) plainly demonstrated that he was engaged in a purely personal pursuit. As the appellate court opinion pointed out, his trip had terminated when he returned the empty trailer to the carrier and he was under no further assignment from the carrier at that time. He could have trip-leased his vehicle to another carrier. He could have remained in Dubuque until he received a call for another trip from Rowley (the carrier-lessee), or he could have returned to his home, which he chose to do. This last fact seems to offset any presumption that Dixon was on the carrier’s business at the time of the accident and would at lease create a question of fact, in which case the opinion should have remanded for a trial on this issue. In my opinion, however, no question of fact is presented. The deposition of the driver, Dixon, filed in support of summary judgment, clearly indicates that at the time of the accident he was on a personal pursuit and in no way in furtherance of the carrier-lessee’s business.