Florida Court Dismisses Wrongful Death Lawsuit Against National Motor Carrier and Its Driver Employee
WWHGD trial team secured the dismissal of Serrano et al. v. United Parcel Service, Inc., et al., a wrongful death lawsuit filed in the Circuit Court of the 13th Judicial Circuit for Hillsborough County, Florida. In Serrano, the trial court granted summary judgment after determining, as a matter of law, that “no reasonable jury could return a verdict in favor of [Plaintiffs’ decedent].” 10/25/24 Order. There, Plaintiffs filed a wrongful death claim against UPS and its driver employee because Plaintiffs’ decedent died during a two-vehicle collision in Tampa.
According to law enforcement and Plaintiffs’ own experts, Plaintiffs’ decedent was traveling at roughly two-times the posted speed limit and intoxicated at nearly two-times (at least .151 BAC g/dl) the legal limit (.08 BAC g/dl) as he sped at night towards a distant intersection, which was about one-quarter of a mile away. At the same time, a UPS tractor-trailer entered the intersection after its driver determined that the distant location of Plaintiffs’ vehicle did not pose a hazard.
During expert discovery, Plaintiffs’ “truck safety” expert, Lew Grill, admitted that there were no visual cues available to the driver of the UPS tractor-trailer warning him of Plaintiffs’ decedent’s excessive speed and/or intoxicated condition; and Plaintiffs’ own accident reconstruction expert, Brian Pfeifer, admitted that there would have been no collision – no crash – if Plaintiffs’ decedent had, among other things, been traveling at or near the posted speed limit.
In its Order, the trial court determined that dismissal was proper because defendants owed no legal duty to Plaintiffs’ decedent. The court explained: “To impose . . . a legal duty, the plaintiff must establish that the defendant was in a position to reasonably foresee or anticipate the incident at issue.” 10/25/24 Order (emphasis in original) (discussing foreseeability as it relates to duty). After deciding that the UPS driver had “the right to assume that [Plaintiffs’ decedent], a distant motorist, would observe the rules of the road,” the court then asked: “should [the UPS driver] have reasonably foreseen or anticipated [Plaintiffs’ decedent’s] outrageous conduct?” The answer: “No,” because “[t]he law does not require clairvoyance.” Id., p. 9.
The law does not require that a motorist forbear from the legal operation of his or her motor vehicle simply because of the mere possibility of some unknown misconduct by . . . another distant motorist. If the law required this, the roads would be empty.
Id., p. 9, n. 5 (emphasis in original).