Trial News

Affirming a verdict for passengers injured in a Greyhound bus crash, the Pennsylvania Superior Court held that the bus company could be held vicariously liable for its driver’s conduct despite its lack of subjective knowledge of the recklessness of that conduct. (Livingston v. Greyhound Lines Inc., 2019 WL 1891130 (Pa. Super. Ct. Apr. 29, 2019).)

In October 2013, Sabrina Anderson was driving a Greyhound bus on an overnight route between New York City and Cleveland. She rear ended a tractor-trailer, killing one passenger and injuring more than 40 others.

The injured passengers sued Greyhound in Pennsylvania state court, alleging the defendant was vicariously liable for Anderson’s conduct and independently liable for the crash because it had inadequate procedures to prevent fatigued driving.

In 2016, four of the passengers’ claims went to trial. The passengers testified that Anderson fell asleep at the wheel and had shown signs of fatigue before the crash, including swerving in and out of her lane, crossing over the highway’s rumble strips, slumping in her seat, and bobbing her head up and down. Evidence also was presented that Anderson knew she should pull over at a rest area if she felt fatigued and had passed by rest areas within an hour of the crash. Greyhound’s internal rules recommended, but did not require, drivers to stop approximately every 150 miles to combat fatigue.

The jury found Anderson 55% at fault and Greyhound 45% at fault and awarded more than $5 million to the four plaintiffs. The jury awarded each plaintiff varying amounts of compensatory damages plus $500,000 in punitive damages. Before trial, the court ruled that the liability verdict would apply to all passengers injured in the incident. Greyhound appealed, moving for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the independent liability claim and punitive damages awards.

Upholding the verdict, the appellate court found that Greyhound is vicariously liable because Anderson’s conduct was within the scope of her employment. Furthermore, the jury had sufficient evidence to award punitive damages because Anderson had “subjective appreciation of the risk that she would fall asleep at the wheel and acted or failed to act in conscious disregard of that risk.” In addition, while Greyhound lacked subjective appreciation that Anderson was likely to fall asleep at the wheel, Pennsylvania law holds employers “vicariously liable for the reckless conduct of an employee without proof that the employer’s conduct satisfies the standard for punitive damages.” Finding that the trial court’s judgment against Greyhound was supported under the passengers’ vicarious liability argument, the appellate court declined to consider whether Greyhound was independently liable for the crash.   

Blue Bell, Pa., attorney, Jon Ostroff, who represented the plaintiffs, said he was “pleased that the court affirmed a fair and appropriate verdict. This was a seven-week, precedent-setting trial that established a roadmap via collateral estoppel for other cases against Greyhound. This case and the others that will rely on it should go a long way to getting Greyhound’s management to take safety more seriously, including the implementation of a sustainable fatigue management program. This systemic failure led to punitive damages in this trial, and I am confident that juries will continue to hold Greyhound accountable if its leadership doesn’t wake up.”