Carlson v. Porter, et al.
N/AOUTCOME: Verdict of $20,001,214.00
On 07/07/2004, Plaintiff Claudia D'Agostino Carlson, 37, was driving on the southbound side of Route 62 in Wheatfield. A northbound van entered southbound traffic and collided with Carlson's vehicle. C ... arlson sustained fatal injuries. The van's driver, William Porter, claimed that the crash occurred while he was swerving around a stopped northbound vehicle that was being driven by Edward Niesser. Carlson's husband, Michael Carlson, acting individually and as administrator of his wife's estate, sued Porter; Porter's employer, MVP Delivery and Logistics Inc.; a company that had contracted MVP Delivery and Logistics' services, DHL International Inc.; a DHL subsidiary, Airborne Inc.; Niesser; and a related entity, Boulevard Twin City Transmissions Inc. The plaintiffs alleged that Niesser and Porter were negligent in the operation of their respective vehicles; that Airborne, DHL, and MVP were vicariously liable for Porter's actions; and that Boulevard Twin City Transmissions was vicariously liable for Niesser's actions. Niesser contended that he slowed appropriately and activated his vehicle's turn signal. Shortly before the scheduled start of the trial, his counsel moved for a directed verdict, and Judge Richard Kloch directed a verdict that resulted in the dismissal of Niesser and Blvd Twin City Transmissions. The matter proceeded to a trial against the remaining defendants. Plaintiffs' counsel claimed that the crash occurred while Porter was acting within the scope of his work duties for MVP, which was contracted to provide pickup and delivery services for DHL. Testimony established that Porter was allowed to take the van home during his lunch hour and that he had previously run numerous errands for MVP's management with the corporate van. Plaintiffs' counsel contended that Porter's use of the van on the date in question was reasonably foreseeable and, accordingly, within the scope of his employment. They contended that DHL hired such independent contractors to avoid liability. "It's almost a sham to state in a contract that an entity such as MVP is an 'independent contractor,' and yet each and every activity of the company is dominated and controlled by DHL," Plaintiffs' counsel Donald Chiari later said. "DHL tried to avoid liability by saying MVP was an independent contractor and that it made its own decisions. We had to pierce the whole veil of ownership." Testimony also established that DHL and MVP shared an office building and that DHL had the power to command any truck at any time to respond to any delivery order. Thus, Plaintiffs' counsel argued that DHL controlled the daily activities of MVP's duties, dictating both general and minute activity. MVP's counsel noted that the accident occurred while Porter was responding to an accident that involved his son. He claimed that Porter was acting outside the scope of his employment, without telling anyone that he was using the truck outside of his assigned route. He contended that Porter met up with his son and then decided to drive to his father-in-law's house, to fix the son's car. The collision occurred while Porter was en route to the father-in-law's house. MVP's owner contended that Porter's actions during lunch were outside the scope of MVP's oversight. He claimed that Porter could have returned to the station and used his own vehicle to drive to his son. DHL denied that it dictated the actions of MVP's employees. It contended that it merely sought to ensure that the DHL label would be represented uniformly and true to DHL's business practices and policies. Several DHL managers testified that the affairs of MVP's employees were outside the scope of their responsibility. DHL maintained that it had no ownership interest (directly or indirectly) in MVP, that MVP owns its own vehicles, that MVP is solely responsible for their maintenance and care, and that MVP pays its employees with checks that are drawn from accounts that are controlled by MVP and signed by MVP's president.