Kevin L. Henderson and Tyler M. Gnesda prevail on Motion for Summary Judgment

Facts: This case revolved around an alleged trip and fall resulting from a pot-hole when Plaintiff, an Independent Contractor for XPO, was dismounting from his vehicle at a drop-off location in Los Angeles, California. Plaintiff brought a premises liability lawsuit against the legal occupier of the land. The legal occupier of the land then filed a Cross-Complaint for equitable indemnity, contribution and declaratory relief against XPO alleging that XPO had failed to properly train, educate, or provide Plaintiff with the proper footwear which contributed to Plaintiff’s injuries. 

Strategy: To show that XPO was not a joint tortfeasor with Cross-Complainant and therefore the property occupier/owner was not entitled to indemnity or contribution from XPO. As such, from the very beginning of this lawsuit, our office strategically propounded written discovery in order to establish that: (1) Plaintiff was an Independent Contractor of XPO; (2) XPO did not have any control over how Plaintiff did his job; (3) XPO did not have any control on what clothing Plaintiff wore; (4) there were no Cal-OSHA or Federal Regulations which mandated footwear for truck drivers; and (5) Defendant/Cross-Complainant was in fact the legal occupier of the premises where the incident occurred and thus had a non-delegable duty to keep its property in a reasonably safe condition. 

Outcome: The Court granted XPO’s Motion for Summary Judgment – heavily relying on the case law and the analysis provided in our firm’s moving papers regarding The Federal Motor Carrier Act and Equitable/Implied Indemnity.  More specifically, the Court agreed with our argument that The Federal Motor Carrier Act does not apply to every action taken by an Independent Contractor, and that its scope is limited to those situations where the Independent Contractor causes harm through the operation of the vehicle; not when harm is suffered by the Independent Contractor as we have here. Lastly, that Cross-Complainant, the legal occupier of land, could not demonstrate that XPO was a joint tortfeasor since it owed a non-delegable duty to keep its premises safe from dangerous conditions.