Recently, in Brown v. Brooks, 2024 WL 4664806 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 4, 2024), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted defendant Penske’s summary judgment motion on plaintiff’s claims of negligent entrustment, failure to maintain and inspect and repair the truck, and loss of consortium.
Plaintiffs, who were three members of the Brown family, alleged that they suffered injuries because of a motor vehicle accident on I-95 in Philadelphia. Plaintiffs alleged that they were hit from behind by a Mayflower truck, driven by defendant Brooks, a Mayflower employee. Further, the Mayflower truck was owned by Mayflower Textile Services, which had a vehicle lease service agreement with Penske. Plaintiffs alleged causes of actions against Penske including negligent entrustment, failure to maintain and inspect and repair the truck, and loss of consortium. Penske moved for summary judgment on all three claims. The Brown Court granted Penske’s motion for summary judgment on all three claims by the plaintiffs and analyzed each in turn.
First, the Brown Court granted Penske’s motion on the claim of negligent entrustment because the plaintiffs failed to make out a cognizable claim. The Court stated that, in order “[t]o prevail on a negligent entrustment claim . . . a plaintiff must show that the defendant ‘(1) permitted [a third party], (2) to operate its [automobile], and (3) that [the defendant] knew or should have known that [the third party] intended to or was likely to use the [automobile] in such a way that would harm another’.” Schneider Nat’l Carriers, Inc. v. Syed, 2019 WL 183905, at *3 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 14, 2019). Further, the Court noted that “Pennsylvania courts have not found an authoritative duty to investigate driver records owed by a lessor, unless the lessor affirmatively assumes responsibility from the lessee. Barring assumption, any duty to investigate the background of hired drivers remains with the lessee.” Gordon v. Robbins, 2024 WL 4008756, at *5 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 30, 2024). Here, the Court held that, while Penske had a longstanding lessee relationship with Mayflower, which hired Brooks, the driver, that alone does not establish a reason for Penske to know that Mayflower would hire incompetent drivers. Further, the Court stated that there is no duty to investigate driver records owed by a lessor, unless the lessor affirmatively assumes responsibility from the lessee, which did not happen here and, as such, summary judgment on the negligent entrustment claim was appropriate.
Second, the Brown Court granted Penske’s motion for summary judgment on the claim by the plaintiffs that Penske failed to inspect, maintain, and repair the Mayflower truck. The plaintiffs argued that there was a defective right rear brake and that the brake was a factual cause in bringing about their injuries. Penske argued that it performed the required inspection of and maintenance on the Mayflower truck in general, and with respect to the truck’s brakes specifically, per the vehicle lease service agreement between the entities. The Court reasoned that a lessor’s duty to maintain its property is only triggered by notice of a defect, which never happened here because there were no complaints about the brakes prior to the accident and after the inspection. Further, the Court stated that the vehicle did not have technology allowing Penske to remotely monitor its condition. Thus, without any complaint about brakes, Penske had no duty to inspect them outside of regularly scheduled maintenance and thus summary judgment on this claim was appropriate. Lastly, the summary judgment motion on the loss of consortium claim was granted because claims against Penske for this type of cause of action were derivative.
The Brown decision can be found here.
For additional questions, please contact Conrad James Benedetto, Esq. and/or Alyssa Klier, Esq.
This article was prepared by McCormick & Priore, P.C. to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is in no way intended to provide legal advice or to create an attorney-client relationship. All Rights Reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of McCormick & Priore, P.C.
