HUGH LAWSON, Senior District Judge.
This case arises out of the untimely death of James Ray Turner. Defendant Harold Dillingham hired Turner in the summer of — to perform odd jobs on the Dillingham's farm in Alapaha, Georgia. Turner died when the tractor he was operating overturned and pinned him in a body of water. Plaintiff Melissa Pearson, Turner's mother, brought this lawsuit on behalf of Turner's estate, along with Kacey Burns, as the parent of Jesse Turner, one of Turner's surviving children, against Defendants Harold and Marteel Dillingham to recover for the loss of Turner's life. Plaintiffs allege that Turner's death is the direct result of Mr. Dillingham's failure to properly train Turner on the operation of the tractor.
Before the Court is Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 16). After reviewing the pleadings, briefs, affidavits, and other evidentiary materials presented, and with the benefit of oral argument, the Court determines that there are genuine issues of material fact that must be resolved by a jury. The Court accordingly
The undisputed facts are as follows:
Around July 2014, Defendant Harold Dillingham ("Mr. Dillingham") hired Decedent James Ray Turner ("Turner") to pull pigweed from his property located at 1326 Open Door School Road, Alapaha, Berrien County, Georgia.
Around 4:00 p.m., Turner informed Frye that he needed to use the restroom. Rather than handling his business outside, as was customary, Turner unhooked the trailer and set off on the tractor toward Mr. Dillingham's shop, which was approximately 1.2 miles away from the field where Turner and Frye were assigned to work for the day. Turner never returned to the field.
The last person to see Turner on October 20th was Tommy Clark, an acquaintance of Mr. Dillingham's who was on his way to make a delivery to a neighboring farm. Clark observed Turner in the field behind Mr. Dillingham's shop "sliding the tractor around, playing" somewhere around 4:30 p.m. (Doc. 16-10, p. 8; Doc. 16-11, p. 9). Turner pulled up alongside Clark's truck, and Clark asked Turner to help him unload something from his truck. Clark then told Turner, "[t]here's been a lot of people killed doing what you're doing. I said, you don't play on a tractor. It has a high ground clearance and, I said, it'll turn over on you. I said, please do not do that anymore." (
Clark proceeded up the hill to Mr. Dillingham's shop to rinse out the bed of his truck and to speak with Mr. Dillingham and his son Dave. Clark informed Mr. Dillingham that he had seen Turner engaging in horseplay on the tractor. About twenty minutes passed before Clark returned to his truck and started home. As he proceeded down the road, Clark saw the tractor overturned in the pond. He called to the Dillinghams, who immediately came to the scene. At first, no one saw Turner. Then, Mr. Turner noticed a tattooed arm that he identified as Turner's. Dave Dillingham called 911 at 6:11 p.m. The Dillinghams and Clark quickly worked to extract Turner from underneath the tractor, attaching a chain to the tractor and then using a lull to lift the tractor enough to pull Turner's body to the shore. According to the Dillinghams and Clark, Turner's body had already turned a purplish color, and he had no pulse.
Both the Berrien County Sheriff's Office and the Georgia State Patrol responded to the 911 call. Georgia State Trooper Rodney Harding took pictures of the scene. Trooper Harding observed "that there were roadway marks showing what appeared to be he had taken a right-hand turn too fast and, because of that, kind of pushed out of the curb and ran into the ditch, causing him to roll the tractor." (Doc. 16-11, p. 8). He also noted that the tractor was in high gear when it was removed from the water. Based on his experience and training investigating accidents, Trooper Harding deduced from the evidence that Turner was driving the tractor recklessly at the time of the accident. (
Turner's body was taken from the scene of the accident to the coroner's office. Deputy Harding was present when the coroner drew blood from the corpse. Trooper Harding preserved the evidence and submitted it to the Georgia Bureau of Investigation ("GBI") for drug and alcohol testing. Trooper Harding also preserved evidence removed from Turner's pockets, including a pack of cigarettes, some rolling papers, a lighter, a handful of peppermints, and a small bag containing what appeared to be marijuana. (
Summary judgment is appropriate when "the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and . . . the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c);
Defendants argue that they are entitled to summary judgment because Plaintiffs cannot establish the basic elements of their failure to train claim. According to Defendants, they had no duty to train Turner on the operation of the tractor he was driving at the time of his death since Defendants had no expectation that Turner would be driving the tractor. Additionally, Defendants aver that summary judgment in their favor is appropriate because Turner, who allegedly was driving the tractor recklessly and while intoxicated, voluntarily exposed himself to the risks associated with his conduct or, alternatively, because Turner's negligence exceed Defendants'.
To establish a claim for negligence, a plaintiff must demonstrate "(1) a legal duty to conform to a standard of conduct raised by law for the protection of others against unreasonable risks of harm; (2) a breach of this standard; (3) a legally attributable causal connection between the conduct and the resulting injury; and (4) loss or damage from the breach."
"Whether or not a legal duty exists is a question of law for the court."
Here, Plaintiffs argue that Defendants breached their duty to properly train Turner on the use of the tractor and the risks associated with driving the tractor. It is a well-settled principle of law that an employer is obligated to train an inexperienced employee in the operation of any equipment and to establish rules and regulations for the use of that machinery to promote the safety of his employees.
Still, in order to recover, Plaintiffs must prove that Defendants' breach of the duty to train was both the cause in fact and the proximate cause of the injury.
The facts of this case do not clearly establish liability on the part of Defendants. While Mr. Dillingham has admitted that he did not question Turner about his experience driving a tractor and that he did not offer Turner any instruction on the operation of the tractor, questions remain regarding whether the failure to provide Turner specific guidance on the use of the tractor led to the accident or whether Turner's own negligence ended in his demise. Accordingly, summary judgement is not appropriate.
Defendants assert that even if Plaintiffs could establish the necessary elements of their negligence claims, Turner assumed the risk of injury when he drove the tractor recklessly and while under the influence of alcohol and marijuana. An assumption of the risk defense
Defendants suggest that the facts in this case are clear and palpable that Turner assumed the risk of his behavior. The Court disagrees. While the evidence is undisputed that prior to the accident, Clark witnessed Turner horse playing on the tractor in the field and admonished Turner, there is no clear evidence that Turner was driving in the same reckless manner at the time the tractor left the road and overturned in the pond. Likewise, the evidence is not clear that Turner appreciated the danger to which he was exposed by taking a right hand turn while in high gear. Plaintiffs have also raised questions regarding the validity of the blood alcohol and drug test results, particularly in light of the fact that no person observed Turner to be intoxicated on the date of the accident. The Court therefore cannot determine as a matter of law that Turner had actual or subjective knowledge of the particular risk he faced.
Defendants further argue that they are entitled to summary judgment because, even if Defendants were negligent, Turner's negligence exceeded their own, thereby barring recovery. The question of a plaintiff's comparative negligence generally is "not susceptible to summary adjudication but should be resolved by trial in the ordinary manner."
A party relying on the testimony of a proposed expert witness bears the burden of laying, by a preponderance of the evidence, a foundation for the admission of its expert's testimony.
As the Supreme Court clarified in
"A district court's gatekeeper role under
Plaintiffs filed a motion to exclude the opinions of H. Horton McCurdy, Ph.D. Defendants hired Dr. McCurdy as a toxicology consultant to review and to interpret the results of the drug and alcohol tests completed by the GBI. Plaintiffs contend that Dr. McCurdy's opinions should be excluded because (1) he did not review Turner's medical records or the pleadings or depositions produced in this case; (2) he did not interview any of the witnesses or the first responders; (3) he did not verify the validity of the testing procedures; (4) he cannot testify as to the degree of impairment experienced by Turner.
At the hearing held on December 14, 2017, Plaintiffs conceded that the concerns raised in their
Defendants move to exclude the expert opinion of Burke Murph. Murph is the principal of Georgia Water and Environmental Services, LLC. He currently works in the fields of agricultural engineering, civil and municipal engineering, and environmental management. He is also an erosion sedimentation control inspector and an erosion sedimentation control designer approved by the Georgia Soil and Water Conservation Commission. He considers himself to be an expert in "water resource engineering." (Doc. 26-1, p. 16-17). Plaintiffs seek to introduce Murph's testimony to explain the conditions of the scene of the accident and to define any technical terms associated with the pond where the accident occurred. Plaintiffs point out that Murph has not been identified to offer any opinion relating to causation or liability in this case.
Defendants argue that Murph's testimony should be excluded because it is not relevant to the sole remaining issue regarding whether Defendants failed to properly train Turner on the operation of the tractor. Murph prepared an export report detailing certain features of the two bodies of water near where the subject accident occurred. Specifically, Murph measured the depth of the water in the pond where the tractor overturned and stated that there may have been an impediment to the free flow of water into the smaller pond, which could have caused a higher water level. Murph took these measurements on July 22, 2015, nine months after Turner's accident, and gives no opinion relating to the conditions of the pond on the actual date in question.
One of the primary requirements for the admission of expert testimony is relevance. "Expert testimony which does not relate to any issue in the case is not relevant, and, ergo, non-helpful."
Plaintiffs have failed to explain how Murph's testimony relates to their sole remaining failure to train claim. To the extent that Plaintiffs intend to introduce Murph to describe the geography of the scene of the accident, the jury can glean that same information through the examination of the photographs taken on the day of the accident. Where the pond lay in relation to the road is not beyond the understanding of the jury. Accordingly, the Court
For the foregoing reasons, the Court
This case shall be placed on the Court's next available trial calendar.