Shipper liability takes another Texas setback; CHRW plays offense

The legal push to hold shippers liable for an accident involving a truck hauling its goods when it did not hire the carrier directly has taken another blow in a Texas court. But the mere existence of the case, alongside the nuclear verdict against C. H. Robinson in the case of Lipe vs.

Lupus Superior, are just more fuel in the legal battlefield over who beyond the obvious parties will be held liable and negligent, and pay for damages arising out of the wreck. In the Lipe case, as the legal world awaits the affirmation of the $604 million verdict by the Dallas County Judge Dianne Jones in the case, C. H.

Robinson (NASDAQ: CHRW) has gone on the offensive, this week publishing a question & answer document as a reiteration of past statements and a retort to various rumors that have been flying around the industry. C. H.

Robinson also reaffirmed its determination to appeal the verdict against it, which impacted the company because it hired the carrier that was involved in a fatal crash. window. googletag = window. googletag || {cmd: []}; googletag. cmd. push(function() {googletag.

defineSlot('/21776187881/FW-Responsive-Main_Content-Slot1', [[300, 100], [320, 50], [728, 90], [468, 60]], 'div-gpt-ad-1709668545404-0'). defineSizeMapping(gptSizeMaps. banner1). addService(googletag. pubads()); googletag. pubads(). enableSingleRequest(); googletag. pubads(). collapseEmptyDivs(); googletag. enableServices(); }); googletag. cmd.

push(function() {googletag. display('div-gpt-ad-1709668545404-0'); }); The Texas case that recently brought victory to shippers was handed down last week in the Court of Appeals for the Eighth District in El Paso. That court upheld an earlier decision in the Texas court system that blocked claims against aircraft manufacturer Atlas Aerospace.

Earlier losses for the plaintiffs It was Atlas’ freight that was being hauled through Kansas in 2018 by Dorado’s Trucking (which in turn had been booked by a broker named Essen Global Logistics) when it was involved in a fatal collision resulting in two deaths.

Plaintiffs in the case–the deceased men’s relatives–sought to have Atlas held vicariously liable for the crash. They had not been successful in those efforts in the lower courts, and have now failed in their effort at a higher Texas court. It’s the second recent decision in a Texas court where vicarious liability against a shipper was rejected.

In May, an attempt to hold Home Depot negligent over the actions of a Werner (NASDAQ: WERN) truck driver that was hauling goods for the chain when it was involved in a fatal crash near Houston in 2024 was rejected by the Texas Supreme Court. There are echoes of that case in the recent decision involving Atlas Aerospace.

In the Atlas litigation, its position as a defendant was severed from the other ongoing case involving the carrier and the broker. (That now-separate action has so far gone in favor of the drivers and carriers and is in appeal). Atlas had won on summary judgment earlier in the case.

In the latest decision favoring Atlas, handed down on the final day of July, the court favored Atlas again on several points. window. googletag = window. googletag || {cmd: []}; googletag. cmd. push(function() {googletag. defineSlot('/21776187881/fw-responsive-main_content-slot3', [[728, 90], [468, 60], [320, 50], [300, 100]], 'div-gpt-ad-1665767553440-0').

defineSizeMapping(gptSizeMaps. banner1). addService(googletag. pubads()); googletag. pubads(). enableSingleRequest(); googletag. pubads(). collapseEmptyDivs(); googletag. enableServices(); }); googletag. cmd. push(function() {googletag.

display('div-gpt-ad-1665767553440-0'); }); One of them was a fairly thorough demolition of the argument that the shipper who had contracted out the movement of its freight should be held liable, much like in the Home Depot case.

“Even in the light most favorable to the Mora family (the lead plaintiffs who lost a family member in the crash), we conclude they presented no evidence sufficient to raise a fact issue on whether Atlas exercised any control over which trucking company was hired, which tractors were used to haul the trailers, or which drivers were selected as Atlas’s products were transported from Mexico to Kansas,” Judge Gina Palafox wrote in her decision for the three-judge panel.

“The Mora Family’s summary judgment evidence of Atlas’s alleged control is so weak as to amount to no more than a scintilla of evidence, and, at most, rises to the level of controlling ‘merely the end sought to be accomplished’—that their products be transported from Mexico to Kansas,” quoting an earlier precedent.

While Atlas did participate in some aspects of the shipment, such as recommending routes for the transportation of goods from Mexico, the court said there was no evidence Atlas controlled that decision. Judge: not an active role “We conclude the Mora Family’s argument conflates affirmative acts and passive omissions,” Judge Palafox wrote.

“Preventing something requires active conduct—taking steps to stop or obstruct