Pels Law was able to obtain a memorandum opinion in White v Date Trucking, 2018 WL 2462921 and it has since been cited positively six times thus far.  In this case, our client, a father of five, was hit in the head due to a negligently placed load bar in an empty truck.  A key issue in the case was whether the Defendant truck driver was the trucking company’s employee.  While the ultimate issue turned on a number of other factors, Pels law pointed out that 49 C.F.R. § 390.5 defines “employee” as follows:   [A]ny individual, other than an employer… [and] [s]uch term includes a driver of a commercial motor vehicle (including an independent contractor while in the course of operating a commercial motor vehicle) . . . .

Based in part upon this, the Court denied Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment:  “In my view, Grantland’s deposition testimony, together with the long-term and comparatively exclusive relationship between KFG and Date Trucking, could plausibly lead a factfinder to conclude that Date Trucking had the ability to control KFG and, by extension, Grantland.”

The denial of Summary Judgment ultimately resulted in a settlement for our client.   Despite the fact that it was not a reported opinion, the case has been cited for the important issues decided in White v Date Trucking:

McKeown v. Rahim, 446 F.Supp.3d 69, 78+, W.D.Va. (2020)

EDWARDS, Jr., v. CARDINAL TRANSPORT, INC., 2019 WL 2121303, *1+, 4th Cir.

HARDIE, et al., v. DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY AMERICAS, et al., 2020 WL 8512503, *1+, D.Md.

Bowman v. Top Gun of Virginia, Inc., 2021 WL 5827776, *6+, D.Md.

Ye v. Global Sunrise, Inc., 2021 WL 5083753, *4, N.D.Ill.

CRUMP, et al., v. CARR’S INC., et al., 2020 WL 8413503, *1 , W.D.N.C.