White v. Powell

1

Niki White, as Independent Administrator of Estate of Tanicialle Brown, Plaintiff, v. Douglas Powell, et al., Defendants.

No. 3:21-cv-50094

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Western Division

June 27, 2024

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Lisa A. Jensen, United States Magistrate Judge

For the following reasons, Defendants' motion for summary judgment [170] is granted in part and denied in part.^[1]

I. Background

Plaintiff Niki White, as independent administrator of the Estate of Tanicialle Brown, filed this suit against Douglas Powell, T1 Transportation, Inc., and FedEx Ground Package Systems, Inc. (“Defendants”) alleging claims of negligence and wrongful death following a motor vehicle collision on January 11, 2020. Compl., Dkt. 25; Jt. Stmt. Facts ¶ 8, Dkt 169. On that date, Brown was traveling Eastbound on I-90. Jt Stmt. Facts ¶ 8, Dkt. 169. Powell, operating a tractor-trailer owned by his employer, T1, was also traveling Eastbound behind Brown. Id. ¶ 10. Powell was employed by T1, an independent contractor that provides services to FedEx. Powell's Answer at 5, Dkt. 33; T1's Answer at 5-6, Dkt. 34; FedEx's Answer at 6, Dkt. 35. On the date of the incident, Powell was an agent of FedEx. Id.

At approximately 1:10 a.m., Brown's vehicle was in the right-most travel lane of the interstate. Pl.'s Resp. ¶ 13, Dkt. 177. Defendants' expert and the crash reconstruction report indicate that Brown's vehicle was either stopped or moving slowly when Powell collided with the rear of her vehicle in the right-most lane. Wiechel's Dep. pg. 115, Dkt. 183-6; Report at 5, Dkt. 171-2; Pl.'s Resp. ¶17, Dkt. 177. The parties do not dispute that Powell did not have any issues controlling his vehicle in the 60 seconds leading up to the collision. Pl.'s Resp. ¶ 46, Dkt. 177. Additionally, Powell did not attempt to brake prior to the collision and did not change lanes, swerve, or attempt any other evasive maneuvers. Pl.'s Resp. ¶ 21, Dkt. 177; Def.s' Resp. ¶7, Dkt. 191.

After the collision, Powell stopped his truck half a mile down the road and got out. Pl.'s Resp. ¶19, Dkt. 177. Powell testified that he inspected his truck for approximately 30 seconds before walking to Brown's vehicle. Powell's Dep. pg. 157, Dkt. 171-4. Powell was the first witness at the scene of the collision. Pl.'s Resp. ¶ 25, Dkt. 177. Powell testified that he called 9-1-1 when he approached Brown's vehicle. Powell's Dep. pgs. 39, 158, Dkt. 171-4.^[2] Powell found the driver's door open and the dome light briefly illuminated, but he did not see anyone in the driver's seat. Def.s' Resp. ¶ 18, Dkt. 191. Powell testified that he did not think to look down on the ground initially because he was looking inside the vehicle instead. Powell's Dep. pgs. 162-64, Dkt. 171-4.

Powell used a flashlight to search around the vehicle for the driver. Def.s' Resp. ¶ 19, Dkt. 191. Powell testified that he walked along the ditch, behind the vehicle, and in the road. Powell's Dep. pgs. 160-60, Dkt. 171-4. When Powell returned to the vehicle, he looked down and discovered Brown on the ground outside of the driver's door with her right foot stuck inside the vehicle. Def.s' Resp. ¶ 20, Dkt. 191; Powell's Dep. pg. 162, Dkt. 171-4. Brown's eyes were closed and there was nothing to suggest she was alive. Pl.'s Resp. ¶ 28, Dkt. 177. Brown was not moving, moaning, or breathing. Pl.'s Resp. ¶ 28, Dkt. 177. Powell checked for Brown's pulse and could not feel anything, but he was unsure if he checked her pulse correctly. Pl.'s Resp. ¶ 29, Dkt. 177.

Illinois State Police Trooper Renne arrived on scene at approximately 1:30 a.m. and found Brown unconscious, with no pulse, laying outside of the driver's door, partially under the vehicle, with her legs pinned in the door. Pl.'s Resp. ¶ 30, Dkt. 177. Brown was pronounced dead at 1:44 a.m., shortly after the arrival of emergency responders. Pl.'s Resp. ¶31, Dkt. 177; Autopsy Report at 9, Dkt. 171-10. According to the autopsy report, Brown died of blunt force trauma of the head, neck, and chest. Autopsy Report at 9, Dkt. 171-10.

The parties agree that at the time of the collision, it was raining, and the road was wet and very dark with no source of street lighting. Pl.'s Resp. ¶¶ 16, 45, Dkt. 177; Def.s' Resp. ¶¶ 4-5, Dkt. 191. The parties also agree that the posted speed limit where the collision occurred was 70 miles per hour. Pl.'s Resp. ¶ 48, Dkt. 177. The parties dispute how fast Powell was driving before the collision, but it was between 60 and 70 miles per hour. Pl.'s Resp. ¶18, Dkt. 177; Pl.'s Add. Facts ¶3, Dkt. 183. Powell's written statement prepared shortly following the collision stated he was traveling between 65 to 70 miles per hour. Dkt. 171-2 at pg. 40. However, Powell testified at his deposition that he was traveling between 60 and 65 miles per hour. Powell's Dep. at pg. 218, Dkt. 171-4.

The parties also dispute whether Brown had any lights on and whether Powell saw Brown's vehicle before the collision. Powell provided the following written statement to an Illinois State Trooper approximately two hours after the collision:

I was traveling east bound on I-90 in Illinois. My speed was between 65-70 mph. I was in the far right lane. I think I saw a car ahead of me, I don't know for sure if I saw its lights or what I saw was a different vehicle. I don't remember seeing it not moving. I thought it was. The next thing I remember is hitting the vehicle. I saw lights just before I hit the vehicle. All of a sudden I was on top of it, or right in front of me. It was like the lights were there and then they weren't - then they were. The hood on my truck flew up. I couldn't see anything, I could tell the vehicle that I hit moved onto the right shoulder. I held my truck and moved to the right shoulder.

Dkt. 171-2 at pg. 40.

Plaintiff also relies on a video recorded conversation that Powell had with a FedEx representative, which was taken at the scene of the collision. Dkt. 189. In the video, Powell responds to the FedEx representative's question by confirming that Brown's taillights and headlights were on.^[3]Pl.'s Stmt. of Add. Facts ¶ 10, Dkt. 183. However, it is difficult to hear the portion of the conversation that immediately follows this statement because of the background noise in the video. Defendants disagree that the video supports Powell's statement and instead rely on Powell's deposition testimony. Def.s' Resp. ¶ 10, Dkt. 191.

Powell testified at his deposition that his written statement was not an accurate reflection of what occurred before the collision. Powell's Dep. at pgs. 178, 182-83, Dkt. 171-4. Powell testified that he was “shook up” after the collision and that it was not until weeks or months later that he was able to understand what really occurred. Powell's Dep. at pgs. 180, 182-83, Dkt. 1714. Powell testified that he did not see Brown's vehicle, or any lights on her vehicle, before impact. Powell's Dep. at pg. 230, Dkt. 171-4. Powell explained that the taillights he saw were farther down the road from where the collision occurred and that the lights he saw before impact were his headlights reflecting on Brown's vehicle. Powell's Dep. at pg. 179-80, Dkt. 171-4.

Photographs from the law enforcement inspection of Brown's vehicle following the collision revealed that Brown's vehicle was in park, the lights were in the on position, the hazard lights were in the off position, and the driver's side seatbelt was unbuckled.

Pl.s' Resp. ¶¶ 23-24, Dkt. 177; Adam Fogarty Report at pg. 21, Dkt. 171-7. Illinois State Police Trooper Moreno, the crash reconstruction officer, testified that he inspected Brown's vehicle after the collision, arriving on scene at approximately 2:53 a.m. Moreno Dep. pg. 10, Dkt. 171-3. He opined that because Brown's taillights revealed the presence of “hot shock,” this indicated that her taillights were on at the time of the collision. Id. pg. 16. Trooper Moreno did not inspect Brown's headlights to determine if they were on, but the dashboard indicated they were in the on position. Id. pg. 73.

Plaintiff filed a third amended complaint alleging that Powell was negligent by driving at a high and dangerous rate of speed, failing to keep his vehicle under control and within its travel lane, keep a proper lookout, stop or slow down when a collision was imminent, and give Plaintiff an audible warning of impending danger, and operating his vehicle without sufficient rest. Jt. Stmt. Facts ¶ 13, Dkt. 169. Plaintiff also alleges that T1 and FedEx were negligent for failing to properly train Powell in the safe operation of its vehicles. Dkt. 25. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on all counts, and Plaintiff responded. Dkts. 169-172, 175, 177, 183, 193. Defendants filed a reply and were granted leave to file a surreply to Plaintiff's corrected statement of facts. Dkt. 178, 190-91.

II. Legal Standard

Summary judgment is appropriate “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 material fact is one that affects the outcome of the suit.” Fidlar Technologies v. LPS Real Estate Data Solutions, Inc., 810 F.3d 1075, 1079 (7th Cir. 2016) (quotation marks and citation omitted). “A genuine issue exists as to any material fact when the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Id.

The movant must either demonstrate “an absence of evidence supporting an essential element of the non-moving party's claim” or present “affirmative evidence that negates an essential element of the non-moving party's claim.” Hummel v. St. Joseph Cnty. Bd. of Comm'rs, 817 F.3d 1010, 1016 (7th Cir. 2016) (citation omitted). In response, the non-movant “must make a...