Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona; December 4, 1968; Arizona; State Appellate Court
An appeal addresses the legality of a negligence judgment against Reliance Truck Company, despite a jury exonerating all individual employees involved. The case stems from an accident where Mrs. Dean Plummer's passenger car collided with a truck and an oncoming vehicle while attempting to pass a convoy of trucks operated by Reliance, escorted by Arizona Motorcycle Escort Service. The convoy, consisting of oversized vehicles, was traveling at 40 mph, with their trailers extending into the road. The jury found no liability for the individual truck drivers and escort personnel, leaving only Reliance and the other vehicle's driver, Brown, liable. Reliance argues that, under the precedent set in DeGraff v. Smith, it should also be exonerated since its employees were cleared of liability. However, the court notes an exception to this rule, stating that if another employee, not exonerated, caused the injury, the employer can still be held liable. The court finds sufficient evidence of Reliance's independent negligence, which was included in the pretrial issues, such as failing to maintain safe distances, providing inadequate room for passing, and not having proper permits or escorts.
Reliance utilized truck-trailer combinations for transporting airplane parts along a specific road, previously employing a motorcycle escort to manage oncoming traffic for safe passage. Despite having two-way radios in their trucks, communication was compromised due to a known "dead spot" on the highway, preventing interaction among vehicles. The motorcycle escort lacked any radio communication entirely. Evidence indicated that better inter-vehicle communication might have prevented the accident. The trailers were unloaded and designed to fold to an 8-foot width, but this had not been done, a decision attributed to higher management within Reliance rather than the truck drivers involved.
The legal question centers on whether evidence of negligence exists against Reliance, independent of its employees’ actions. Negligence is defined as failing to act as a reasonable person would under similar circumstances. Factors suggest that the accident may stem from inadequate planning rather than execution, with control over the trailers' width, route selection, escort type, and communication methods resting with employees not named in this lawsuit. Consequently, the jury's verdict finding negligence on Reliance's part is upheld. Judge ALICE TRUMAN participated in this decision following Chief Judge JAMES D. HATHAWAY's recusal. The maximum allowable vehicle width is stipulated as eight feet per A.R.S. 28-1002.
