.

Case Law Alerts

Second Circuit Held Defendant Not Entitled to Summary Judgment on Vicarious Liability Claims When It Hired Taxi Company to Transport Defendant’s Employee and Taxi Driver Drove Intoxicated, Causing an Accident

Francois v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad Company, 107 F.4th 67 (2d Cir. July 11, 2024)

October 1, 2024

Metro-North Commuter Railroad hired a taxi driver through Hudson Valley Transportation to transport the plaintiff. The taxi driver was speeding and driving erratically before crashing into a ditch. The plaintiff was injured in the crash, and officers on scene ultimately charged the taxi driver with driving while intoxicated. The plaintiff sued Metro-North under FELA.

The Second Circuit Court reversed the Southern District’s decision dismissing the case against Metro-North. The circuit court held that an issue of material fact existed as to whether the taxi driver acted within the scope of Metro-North’s agency, citing that Metro-North “dispatched” the taxi driver, even though it hired Hudson Valley Transportation, which dispatched the driver. 

The circuit court considered whether Metro-North’s hiring Hudson Valley Transportation “as an intermediary” extinguished any agency between Metro-North and the driver as an issue of fact. The court also held, the foreseeability of whether the driver would drive drunk was also an issue of fact and whether the speed or the intoxication caused the accident, since, as a possible agent of Metro-North, it would be responsible for the driver’s negligence in speeding. The court did affirm the dismissal of direct claims against Metro-North, citing there was no evidence that the company knew or should have known the driver would drive intoxicated. 

Case Law Alerts, 4th Quarter, October 2024 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2024 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

Documentation as a Defense: Protecting Against Legal Malpractice Claims

Legal malpractice claims often arise years after the events in question, when memories have faded and key details may be difficult to recall. In those moments, thorough documentation and well-maintained files can become an attorney’s strongest defense. Read Megan's article on the PLUS Blog: Documentation as a Defense: Protecting Against Legal Malpractice Claims - PLUS

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group

News

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group

business meeting photo

Result

Summary Judgment Obtained in Insurance Coverage Case

Thought Leadership

New Jersey Appellate Division Affirms Recreational Immunity for County Under Landowners' Liability Act

In a recent unpublished decision in Matthew Kuzma, etc. v. Middlesex County Parks Department, et al., the New Jersey Appellate Division affirmed summary judgment in favor of Middlesex County Parks Department, holding that the county was immune from liability under New Jersey's Landowners' Liability Act (LLA), notwithstanding its failure to plead the immunity as an affirmative defense in its answer to the Complaint. The case arose from injuries sustained by fourteen-year-old plaintiff, Matthew Kuzma, while playing basketball at Spring Lake Park in South Plainfield on August 23, 2019. The plaintiff observed a crack in the basketball court before beginning to play but did not consider it dangerous. During the game, his foot became caught in the crack, causing him to fall and suffer a significant ankle injury. The plaintiff alleged that the injury resulted in ongoing physical limitations and deprived him of the opportunity to play collegiate basketball. The plaintiff filed suit alleging that the defendants negligently maintained the basketball court. Although the county did not assert LLA immunity as an affirmative defense in its answers, it later moved for summary judgment on that basis. The plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing that the county had waived the defense by failing to plead it. The county maintained that the plaintiff had received sufficient notice of its intent to rely on the LLA through discovery and therefore suffered no unfair surprise or prejudice. The trial court agreed and granted summary judgment, concluding that the county should be permitted to invoke statutory immunity notwithstanding its failure to formally plead the defense. Relying heavily on the New Jersey Supreme Court's guidance in Arias v. Cnty. of Bergen, holding a county park was subject to the immunity of the LLA, the Appellate Division affirmed, holding that the county's failure to plead LLA immunity did not preclude reliance on the defense under the circumstances presented. The court determined that the plaintiff had received adequate notice of the immunity claim through discovery and that permitting the defense furthered the public-policy objectives embodied in the LLA. In affirming dismissal, the Appellate Division acknowledged the seriousness of the plaintiff's injury and the general societal interest in maintaining parks and recreational facilities in a safe condition. However, the court emphasized that both the legislature and the New Jersey Supreme Court have expressed a clear policy choice to limit liability for public and private landowners who make recreational property available for public use. The decision reinforces the courts' continuing adherence to the Landowners' Liability Act and the principle that recreational lands and facilities should be broadly protected from liability exposure, even in cases involving significant personal injuries.

Marshall Dennehey Shareholders Recognized as Florida Trend Legal Elite Notable Women Leaders in Law

News

Marshall Dennehey Shareholders Recognized as Florida Trend Legal Elite Notable Women Leaders in Law

Thought Leadership

State Of Insurance: Q3 Notes From Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania courts issued several noteworthy insurance coverage decisions in Q3 2026, offering guidance on public policy defenses, commercial umbrella coverage, and privilege disputes in bad faith litigation. Todd's article reviews three key cases and their implications for insurers, policyholders, and coverage counsel, highlighting the continued importance of precise policy language, disciplined claims handling, and thorough documentation.

Complete Victory Obtained in a Workers’ Compensation Matter

Result

Complete Victory Obtained in a Workers’ Compensation Matter

Defense Victory Obtained in Workers’ Compensation Case

Result

Defense Victory Obtained in Workers’ Compensation Case

Bret E. Dubbert Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Orlando Office as Special Counsel in the Casualty Department

News

Bret E. Dubbert Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Orlando Office as Special Counsel in the Casualty Department

Event

CLM 2026 Focus Conference

Allison joins three insurance industry leaders to discuss how cyber coverage disputes, the growing impact of social inflation on bodily injury claim valuation, and the use of artificial intelligence are reshaping the bad faith landscape. The panel will examine emerging sources of extra-contractual exposure, including evolving cyber insurance coverage issues and the challenges of accurately valuing bodily injury claims. Practical approaches to claim evaluation using AI, along with defense strategies designed to help prevent or successfully defend against bad faith litigation, will also be addressed.