Attorney Sobczak obtained a $750,000 settlement for a victim of a motor vehicle crash, and his minor children, stemming from a motor vehicle crash with a plow for a local landscaping company.
On the date of the incident, in a vehicle owned and controlled by the Defendants was operated by one of their drivers, who while in the employ, was operating a one-ton pickup truck with plow and sander installed. Although subsequently it has been discovered that driver was a relatively long time employee of company, no documentation existed regarding the terms or scope of that employment. The driver pulled out of a private driveway (pulling out from a one-way only “ENTER ONLY” way) and without paying attention, crossed over the double yellow line and pulled into the oncoming traffic lane. Defendant driver remained on the wrong side of the road (not actively involved in any plowing operations for the city, state, or other governmental entity, thus subject to the same rules and laws of the road that apply to all vehicles on public roads) as Plaintiff travelled (on his way to work) in the southbound lane. Although it was not evident what Defendant driver was doing, it appeared as if he may have been working on the driveways on the northbound side of the road, as that was the reasonable explanation for being on the wrong side of the road. As Plaintiff approached, the Defendant driver, without proper lookout, turned and changed lanes to turn into second private driveway – a one-way only “EXIT ONLY” way) into Plaintiff’s path, resulting in a crash.
The corporate defendant, as the owner of the vehicle, and the entity that entrusted the keys to the driver was responsible for the negligent hiring, training, supervision, and monitoring of driver and thus placing him in the position to harm Plaintiff and the general public.
The corporate defendant’s employment and training policy were effectively non-existent, summarized by their sworn position that “[defendant] does not have a training program for employees operating its vehicles. Instead, it employs people who have experience in the operation of motor vehicles, including snow plow trucks” thus relying on the “experience” and good driving records of their employees. Defendant further agreed that they should know about their employees’/drivers’ driving history/records, but in case of defendant driver they conceded that they knew nothing about his driving history. Once the defendant driver’s bad driving history was disclosed (during the course of discovery in this action), defendants conceded that driver should never have been allowed to operate their vehicles on public roads. As a result of the injuries sustained in the crash, Plaintiff required extensive medical care and was unable to return to his employment, further affecting his minor children. The case settled shortly in advance of jury trial.