KEY TAKEAWAYS:

• Direct negligence claims can significantly inflate verdict risk for motor carriers: Studies show claims alleging employer negligence drive substantially higher awards than cases focused solely on driver conduct

• Admitting agency may eliminate those claims: In jurisdictions recognizing the McHaffie rule, a motor carrier’s admission of agency can render negligent hiring, training, supervision, and entrustment claims legally moot

• The McHaffie rule can narrow both liability and discovery: When properly invoked, the rule supports early dismissal of direct liability claims and can limit discovery to the driver’s conduct – reducing cost and prejudicial exposure

Personal injury lawsuits arising out of trucking accidents are usually filed against both the motor carrier and its driver. Plaintiffs typically assert both vicarious and direct liability claims against the carrier, the former under the doctrine of respondeat superior, and the latter under the theory of negligent hiring, training, supervision, or entrustment. Those direct negligence claims present an increased risk to motor carriers.

In its December 2025 study, “Trucking Litigation: A Forensic Analysis,” the American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI) reports that the “type of negligence significantly impacts total awards,” and notes that the median award for “employer negligence” and “improper hiring and onboarding” is approximately $4 million as compared to the national median award of $1.3 million. It is therefore not surprising that counsel for claimants often aggressively pursue such claims even though they have no independent causal connection to the accident.

Defense counsel must therefore take steps to protect motor carriers from the increased risk presented by direct liability claims. When, for example, it is undisputed that the driver was acting within the course and scope of his “employment” at the time of the accident (49 C.F.R. 390.5), the motor carrier should consider admitting agency and asserting a defense under the so-called McHaffie rule, which has the added benefit of providing a basis upon which to object to irrelevant, inflammatory, and burdensome discovery related to hiring, training, and other company conduct.

The McHaffie rule provides that an employer’s admission of agency renders moot any direct liability claims for negligent hiring, training, supervision, or entrustment. See McHaffie v. Bunch, 891 S.W.2d 822 (Mo. 1995)(adopting the “majority view that once an employer has admitted respondeat superior liability for a driver’s negligence, it is improper to allow a plaintiff to proceed against the employer on any other theory of imputed liability”). The rationale behind the rule is sound because such imputed liability claims are direct, but they are not independent. They are direct against the carrier in that they are based on its own allegedly negligent conduct. But they are not independent of the driver’s negligence because causation must necessarily flow through it. If an employee negligently causes a motor vehicle accident, then his employer is vicariously liable for it regardless of whether it was itself negligent; but if the employee did not negligently cause the accident, then the employer’s allegedly negligent hiring, training, or supervision of that employee could not possibly have caused it. A motor carrier’s failure to train a driver, for example, cannot trigger liability unless that driver drives unsafely and causes an accident.

In those jurisdictions that follow the McHaffie rule or may be persuaded to follow it, motor carriers therefore should, when appropriate, admit agency in the answer to the complaint and assert a defense that the plaintiff’s claims for negligent hiring, training, supervision, or entrustment are legally moot because the carrier’s liability under those theories derives from and is dependent on the negligence of the driver. Defense counsel should promptly file a motion to dismiss those claims; should object to discovery about the company’s conduct – the only relevant conduct being that of the driver; and should, if necessary, move for summary judgment on those claims after the close of discovery.

ATRI’s forensic analysis confirms what many have long suspected: “The trucking industry is especially prone to large jury awards.” Since the type of negligence alleged is a significant factor in driving those higher awards, it is imperative that motor carriers and their counsel diligently seek dismissal of irrelevant and prejudicial claims, such as negligent hiring, training, supervision, or entrustment claims against a motor carrier that admits agency of its driver.

If you have questions about how this impacts your business, please contact:

• Robert M. Hanlon Jr.
• Christopher P. Morgan
• Or another member of the Transportation team