Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No. 04-1965
LLOYD E. JORDAN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
WESTERN DISTRIBUTING COMPANY,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
STEPHEN PHILIP MEININGER; RONNIE GENE SASSER,
JR.,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA03-950-CCB)
Argued:
Decided:
May 2, 2005
PER CURIAM:
This case arises from an incident that occurred on February
26, 2002, on Interstate 95 in Baltimore, Maryland.
On that date,
Id.
assault
of
Jordan,
concealment
of
deadly
weapon,
State
dismissed
the
weapon
charge
against
him.
jury
The
(Counts
through
VI),
negligence
pursuant
to
the
These decisions
I.
Respondeat Superior
J.A. 86.
He
occurred
while
Sasser
and
were
transporting
that
[t]he
corporation
clearly
benefitted
Jordan
from
the
Further, Western
points out that Sasser and Meininger were subsequently arrested and
separated from the truck as well as the currency that Western
entrusted to their care.
refute
the
claim
Meiningers conduct.
that
benefitted
from
Sasser
and
were on duty at the time of the incident, and that, under this
theory,
an
employer
would
be
liable
for
the
actions
of
its
Western
Nemours & Co., 324 F.3d 761, 764 (4th Cir.), cert denied, 540 U.S.
940 (2003). Under Maryland law, the questions of agency and scope
of employment are generally questions for the jury.
Carroll v.
Hillendale Golf Club, 156 Md. 542, 545, 144 A. 693, 695-95 (1929).
However, [w]hen the servants deviation from the strict course of
his employment or duty is slight and not unusual, the court may
determine as a matter of law that he is still executing the
masters business, and if the deviation is very marked and unusual
it may determine the contrary.
In Sawyer,
Prosser and Keaton On The Law of Torts 70, at 506 (5th ed.
1984)).
We find that the district court properly dismissed Jordans
respondeat superior claim.
their
actions.
While
it
is
true
that
Sasser
and
Meininger committed these acts while on duty, using the truck and
guns provided to them by Western, they were in no way attempting to
7
II.
However,
stating that Meininger did not need drug treatment and should be
returned to full-time employment as soon as possible. Western then
required Meininger to undergo another drug screening, which he
passed.
of
in
the
Federal
securing
and
Motor
Carrier
maintaining
Safety
Sasser
and
Regulations
Meiningers
in
January
2001;
(4)
accepting
the
findings
of
the district court found that Jordan relied on the fact that
Meininger tested positive for drugs seven days after the incident
and that a jury found him guilty of possessing a controlled,
dangerous substance at the time of the incident.
The district
10
Next,
the
district
court
found
that
Jordan
failed
to
that a reasonable person would not assume that someone under the
influence of marijuana is likely to become violent.
Based on these findings, the district court concluded that no
genuine issue of material fact existed with respect to Jordans
claim
of
negligent
hiring
and
retention
against
Western.
11
He argues that a police report notes that the cab of the truck that
Sasser and Meininger were driving smelled of burnt marijuana, and
that several grams of marijuana were found in their possession. He
also asserts that they tested positive for marijuana after the
incident.
was foreseeable because the general type of harm he received injury at the hands of carriers under the influence of drugs - was
attributable to Westerns negligence in hiring Meininger after his
positive drug test and to Western not following up as required by
federal regulations.
Jordan
further
argues
that
the
intentional
nature
of
Whether the
He claims
12
revealed that Meininger was still abusing drugs and he would have
been terminated.
properly
maintained
files
and
shared
its
background
check
Appellants
Br. at 29.
Western counters that Jordan has again presented no solid
evidence that either Sasser or Meininger was under the influence of
drugs at the time of the incident.
court
cause
correctly
because
concluded
he
has
no
that
Jordan
evidence
to
cannot
prove
support
his
13
Western
contends that the district court properly found that Jordans harm
was not foreseeable because it was not the type of harm that a
reasonable person would believe a drivers drug use would cause.
In addition, Western notes that Jordan has failed to cite any case
in which a court found a link between marijuana use and assault.
Finally, Western reiterates that Jordan produced no evidence
to show that Western breached its duty of care.
Western asserts
that Jordan has provided no proof that Western did not comply with
federal regulations. Further, Western asserts that, even if Jordan
had produced evidence of violations, these could not support a
claim for negligent hiring, training, supervision, or retention
based on the holding in Bryant v. Better Business Bureau of Greater
Maryland, Inc., 923 F. Supp. 720 (D. Md. 1996).
Id. at 751.
14
Fed.
Proximate
would
negligence.
be
subjected
as
result
of
the
defendants
Md. App. 124, 139, 680 A.2d 569, 576 (1996) (quoting Stone v.
Chicago Title Ins. Co., 330 Md. 329, 337, 624 A.2d 496, 500
(1993)). The chain of causation remains unbroken if an intervening
occurrence is one which might, in the natural and ordinary course
of things, be anticipated as not entirely improbable, and the
[initial tortfeasors] negligence is an essential link in the chain
. . .
Yonce, 111 Md. App. at 139, 680 A.2d at 577 (quoting State
ex rel. Schiller v. Hecht Co., 165 Md. 415, 421, 169 A. 311, 313
16
No
Moreover, there is no
actions
by
Meininger
based
Western.
17
on
the
information
known
to
district court that the evidence in the record - (1) the fact that
Meininger tested positive for drugs seven days after the incident,
and (2) the fact that a jury found Meininger guilty of possessing
a
controlled
substance
at
the
time
of
the
incident
is
our analysis.
Given the above conclusions, we find that no genuine issue of
material
fact
supervision
exists
claim,
and
as
to
that
Jordans
the
negligent
district
18
court
hiring
and
appropriately
III.
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, the orders of the district
court dismissing Count VII of the complaint and granting summary
judgment to Western Distributing Company on Count VIII of the
complaint are
AFFIRMED.
19