Open Road - Winter 2026
Legal Brief
Phillip Prejean 2026-01-24 14:35:07
The Curious Case of Negligence Claims Despite Admitted Fault
When a professional driver in Louisiana is involved in a motor vehicle accident, the plaintiff will allege the defendant-driver was negligent for causing the accident and often allege the defendant-driver’s employer was independently negligent for causing the accident by negligently hiring, training and supervising their driver.
The plaintiff will argue that had the defendant-employer done a better job with hiring, training and supervising their driver, then the subject accident never would have occurred. When the plaintiff accuses the defendant-employer of negligence, the plaintiff will often propound expansive and expensive discovery into the defendant-employer’s employee records, hiring policies, supervision policies, safety policies, training policies, and any other policies and procedures the employer may have, and their requests will often seek information going back many years. Even in a simple case, with clear liability involving minimal speeds, minimal property damage and minimal injuries, a defendant-employer can face very intrusive and expensive discovery requests that require a lot of time and resources to manage. In general, the plaintiff’s goal with discovery requests like these is often to try and find something the plaintiff can use to upset a jury in order to get the jury to dislike the employer with the goal of getting the jury to enter a larger verdict for the plaintiff than they otherwise would. For smaller cases, the plaintiff’s expansive discovery may be to push a defendant for an early settlement since the costs associated with doing the discovery may outweigh the costs associated with settling the case.
For a brief period, employers could escape these independent negligence claims by admitting that their employee was in the course and scope of their employment at the time of the subject accident. This essentially means the employer would admit that their employee was working for them at the time of the accident. Under Louisiana law, if an employee is in the course and scope of their employment and causes injury or damages to another, the employer is financially responsible for the employee’s fault. During this time, many Louisiana courts reasoned that if the employer was admitting their employee was in the course and scope of their employment at the time of the subject accident, then any independent negligence claims against the employer were “subsumed” by the claims against their employee.
That all changed in 2022 when the Louisiana Supreme Court decided Martin v. Thomas, 21-01490 (La. 6/29/22), 346 So.3d 238, where the Louisiana Supreme Court declared whether a defendant-employer admitted course and scope was immaterial to a plaintiff’s independent negligence claims. The Court stated that if fault is shown on the part of the employee, then the issue of whether there is fault on the part of the defendant-employer remained an open question, and Louisiana law required the defendant-employer’s fault be determined.
Martin v. Thomas left open the question of what should happen if both the: 1) employer admits their employee was in the course and scope of their employment at the time of the subject accident; and 2) the employee admitted 100 percent fault? After all, if a defendant-employer admits their employee was in the course and scope of their employment and is therefore financially responsible for all injuries and damages arising from their employee’s negligence and if the defendant-employee admits they are 100 percent at fault, then what else is there to determine regarding negligence? All questions regarding negligence and fault are essentially disposed of and the only questions left to determine would be plaintiff’s injuries and damages. After all, no combination of defendants can be found more than 100 percent at fault. And if 100 percent fault has been determined, then plaintiff is free to recover for all their injuries and damages.
This question left open by Martin was first argued in the Western District of Louisiana Court in Ferguson v. Swift Transp. Co. of Arizona, 17-1570, 2023 WL 173143 (W.D. La. 1/12/2023), where the court reasoned that if an employer admits their employee was in the course and scope of their employment at the time of an accident and the employee admits 100 percent fault, then the issues regarding fault and negligence are fully resolved. There would be no reason to do further discovery or arguments around the independent negligence of the defendant-employer since the defendants’ admissions allow the plaintiff full recovery. One thing to note, Ferguson was heard by a federal court applying Louisiana law. In cases like Ferguson, the federal court must decide the case on Louisiana statutes and decisions by the Louisiana Supreme Court, and in the absence of Louisiana statutes or prior Louisiana Supreme Court decisions, the federal court must guess how the Louisiana Supreme Court would rule on the case. Up until November 12, 2025, the Louisiana Supreme Court had not attempted to answer this question left open by Martin.
However, on November 12, 2025, in a two sentence per curium opinion in Magill v. Wener Enterprises, Inc. of Nebraska, 025-CC-00892 (La. 11/12/25), the Louisiana Supreme Court declared Ferguson misapplied Louisiana law. The Louisiana Supreme Court does not give any reasoning or specifics on where the Ferguson court made its errors, but the Court clearly is indicating a defendant-employer is unlikely to escape independent negligence claims by simply admitting its defendant-employee was in their course and scope of employment and if the defendant-employee admits they were 100 percent at fault.
Defendant-employers may still escape claims of independent negligence by filing a motion for summary judgment, but that will likely only realistically be available after some initial discovery has been completed. Regardless of whether the driver/employer is subject to the record retention requirements in the FMCSA, it is important for employers to try and keep any paperwork related to their drivers, including job applications, background checks, testing results, evidence of any training, and any policies and procedures provided to their drivers even if their driver is subsequently terminated or leaves their employment after an accident in order to facilitate early discovery. Even without the record retention requirements of the FMCSA, plaintiffs have two years from the date of an accident to file their lawsuit, so employers should be holding on to this paperwork for at least two years, if not longer.
©Innovative Publishing Ink. View All Articles.
Legal Brief
https://www.mydigitalpublication.com/article/Legal+Brief/5101160/859958/article.html