Mathis v. Terra Renewal Servs., Inc.

ANTHONY GORDON MATHIS, Plaintiff, v. TERRA RENEWAL SERVICES, INC., andDARLING INGREDIENTS, INC., Defendants/Third-Party Plaintiffs, v. LJC ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC, Third-Party Defendant.

3:19-cv-180-RJC-DSC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION

June 14, 2021

ORDER

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the following: (1) Defendants Terra Renewal Services, Inc.'s ("Terra") and Darling Ingredients, Inc.'s ("Darling") (collectively, "Defendants") Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiffs' Claims, (Doc. Nos. 41-42, 56-57); (2) Plaintiff Anthony Gordon Mathis' ("Mathis") Response in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiffs' Claims, (Doc. Nos. 52-53); (3) Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment against Third-Party Defendant LJC Environmental, LLC ("LJC"), (Doc. Nos. 43-44, 54); (4) Third-Party Defendant LJC's Response in Opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment against LJC, (Doc. No. 49); (5) Third-Party Defendant LJC's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, (Doc. Nos. 46-48); (6) Defendants' Response to LJC;s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, (Doc. No. 50); (7) Defendants' Motion to Trifurcate Trial, (Doc. Nos. 58-59, 61); and (8) Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Trifurcate Trial, (Doc. No. 60). The motions have been fully briefed and the issues are ripe for adjudication.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Procedural History

Plaintiff Anthony Gordon Mathis filed a Complaint in this Court against Defendants Terra Renewal Services, Inc. ("Terra") and Darling Ingredients, Inc. ("Darling") on March 10, 2019. (Doc. No. 1).¹ Defendants filed a Reply and a Third-Party Complaint against LJC Environmental, LLC ("LJC") on July 2, 2019 (Doc. No. 15).

Following discovery the parties filed several cross-motions for summary judgment. Defendants Terra and Darling filed a motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff's claims on March 12, 2021. (Docs. Nos. 41, 42; see also 52, 53, 57). On the same day, Defendants also filed for summary judgment on their Third-Party Complaint against LJC. (Docs. Nos. 43, 44; see also 49, 54). LJC filed a motion for partial summary judgment on the same day as well, seeking summary judgment on the indemnity claim by Defendant Darling in particular. (Docs. Nos. 46, 47). In response, Defendants agreed that Darling was not a party to the Subcontractor Services Agreement and noted that they only seek Summary Judgment onindemnification as to Defendant Terra. (Doc. No. 50).

Defendants filed a motion to trifurcate the trial on May 14, 2021. This Court then held a hearing on May 27, 2021 at which the Court heard from all parties about their respective dispositive motions.

B. Factual Summary

In the light most favorable to the non-moving party: Plaintiff is a former truck driver who was employed by Third-Party Defendant LJC during the events in question. Defendant Terra, acting on behalf of itself and Defendant Darling, entered into the Subcontractor Services Agreement (the "Agreement") in May 2015 with LJC for the transportation of industrial residuals. (Doc. No. 15-1). Under the terms of the Agreement, LJC would provide transport industrial residuals from and to customer locations on Terra's behalf, along with additional related services, while Terra would provide specific equipment including vacuum tanker trailers for the work. (Doc. No. 15-1 Ex. A at 1). The Agreement required that any equipment Terra supplied be "in good condition and in good working order," while LJC assumed responsibility for work performance safety and for ensuring that its employees observed and abided by all safety regulations and laws. (Doc. No. 15-1 at 3-4). The Agreement also provided that, upon LJC's written request, Terra would be required to provide training for any such equipment. (Doc. No. 15-1 at 4). Finally, the Agreement contained an indemnity provision.²

On March 10, 2017, Plaintiff - on behalf of LJC - was to pick up and transport industrial residuals from Hunter Farms LLC in High Point, North Carolina. Defendant Terra owned the vacuum tanker trailer, Tanker 11500, provided by Defendants for the job. (Doc. No. 42-1). The tanker was certified to meet a 3 p.s.i. minimum working pressure. (Doc. No. 53-18 at 11).³ The tanker was no longer being used to transport hazardous materials by the time of the accident. (Doc. No. 42-3 at 51; Doc. No. 42-6 at 35; Doc. No. 42-15 at 28; Doc. No. 42-16 at 3). The tanker in question was equipped with an adjustable pressure relief valve ("PRV") that could be set from 7 p.s.i. to 21 p.s.i., although on subsequent testing the PRV in fact opened between 25 and 27 p.s.i. (Doc. No. 42-14 at 10-11; Doc. No. 42-15 at 14). Reggie Porter, a driver, testified in his deposition that both LJC and Defendant Terra had been informed that the tanker could "hold[] pressure." (Doc. No. 42-17 at 7-9, 46). Porter also stated that when he informed James Powell (employee of Terra) of this fact in front of Terra employees, Powell replied that the tanker would need to be "looked at" as a result of this information. (Doc. No. 42-17 at 10, 22). Among other issues, the tanker's cannister and pressure relief valve were not working on the day of the accident. (Doc. No. 53-2 at 55).

LJC's Standard Operating Procedure ("SOP") required its drivers to, among other things, "Make Sure Trailer is Properly Vented through Canister or Top Hatch Open," and also told drivers to "Always Have Top Man Hole Cover 'HATCH' . . . Open during Loading to Prevent Vapor Lock." (Doc. No. 42-18). Plaintiff signed a form acknowledging that he had read and received the SOP by at least July 2016. (Doc. No. 42-6 at 30; Doc. No. 42-19).

On March 10, 2017, Plaintiff first loaded the vacuum tanker trailer in question at a chicken plant in Wilkesboro, North Carolina, with industrial residuals through the center manway on top of the trailer. (Doc. No. 42-6 at 7-9). Plaintiff then drove the tanker to a farm site to unload the trailer. (Pl. Dep. 56:19 to 57:25, 83:7-25). After unloading at the farm site, Plaintiff drove to the eventual accident site at Hunter Farms, a dairy operation in High Point, North Carolina. (Doc. No. 42-20). There Plaintiff removed the end cap from the vent hose and began loading. (Doc. No. 42-22). Plaintiff did not open the manway lids on the tanker before beginning to load the tanker. (Young Dep. 24:9-16, 113:11-14; Plaintiff Dep. 112:20-113:5, 121:1-122:11, 226:2-25). Plaintiff returned to the cabin of the truck after the loading process began but while loading was ongoing. (Surveillance Video timestamp 13:57:14-14:01:56, 14:04:40-14:22:38; Young Dep. 47:3-17; J. Mathis Dep. 60:21-61:11, 251:13-252:16; Porter Dep. 39:15-25).

As planned, sludge began to enter through a port at the bottom of the tanker. (LJC Dep. 119:15-18; Pl. Dep. 65:11-15). At some point during the loading, however, Hunter Farms employee Mitch Young ("Young") noticed a hissing sound.(Young Dep. 48:18-49:9, 83:20-84:9; Video timestamp 14:36:40-14:37:20). He informed Plaintiff, who subsequently checked the vent line and found there was no air coming out, whereupon the pair determined that the tanker had become pressurized and Young turned off the loading pump. (Young Dep. 48:18-49:20; Surveillance Video timestamp 14:37:20-14:37:48). Plaintiff then may have told Young that he intended to loosen the trailer's manway lid to relieve the pressure from the tanker. (Young Dep. 50:11-51:1) ("I actually don't remember, but I guess he said he was going to loosen the lid"). Plaintiff climbed the side of the tanker towards the manway cover, and can be seen on video standing over the manway cover on top of the truck. (Young Dep. 35:23-36:8; Surveillance Video timestamp 14:38:05-14:38:38). The manway cover contains a warning sign not to open the cover when the tanker is pressurized; however, Plaintiff states that this sign was covered in dirt and debris. (Doc. No. 53-13 at 20-22). Ultimately the manway cover was blown off of the pressurized tanker and struck the Plaintiff, throwing him into the air and against a building before he landed on the ground. (Surveillance Video timestamp 14:38:05-14:38:38). Plaintiff suffered severe and permanent injuries as a result. (Doc. No. 53-2 at 55-56).

At a later deposition, LJC's corporate designee, Luke Mathis, stated that Plaintiff's actions on March 10, 2017 represented a violation of the company's SOP. (LJC Dep. 113:22-122:2, 134:3-135:24). The corporate representative stated that Plaintiff's actions led to the injury that day and that he "didn't do what he was supposed to do . . . ." (LJC Dep. 191:3-192:7, 313:7-14). The corporaterepresentative further elaborated that Plaintiff's actions that day were the predominant reason for his injuries, (Doc. No. 44-3 at 19), and that trying to release a manway cover on a pressurized tanker is "like walking out in front of a train." (Doc. No. 44-3 at 22).

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Summary judgment shall be granted "if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A factual dispute is genuine "if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A fact is material only if it might affect the outcome of the suit under governing law. Id. The movant has the "initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986) (internal citations omitted). "The burden on the moving party may be discharged by 'showing' . . . an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case." Id. at 325.

Once this initial...