Federal District Court Dismissed Plaintiff’s Claims for Negligent Hiring, Training, Retention, Supervision, and Entrustment

Often in matters involving simple motor vehicle accidents, plaintiffs attempt to throw in claims relative to negligent hiring, training, retention, supervision, etc. as a means of bolstering the “shock value” of their claim in an attempt to engage in “reptile theory”-style litigation by poking irrelevant holes in the hiring and training process. The court held that, under Twombly, the plaintiff “must allege specific facts tending to show that the applicant/employee demonstrated a propensity for misconduct or ill fitness for the position . . . .” These claims are likely far more vulnerable under the stricter federal court pleading standards than in state court jurisdictions and is a reason why we will almost always pursue removal to federal court, when available, in defense of commercial trucking and transportation clients.