The applicants also argue that a third-party seller responsible for delivering the trailer to the taker is also an independent contractor and is therefore not protected by Section 30106 (a). However, XTRA provides compelling evidence that companies that supply trailers to takers sign the same leases – under the same conditions – as all other takers. (R. 42-10, ex. G, Zaborowski Dep., at 48-49; 42-6, ex. C, Decl Dweller. As such, these third parties are, on the undisputed facts of Peder, and are not independent contractors, as the complainants argue. This diversity action stems from an assault on the applicant on December 11, 1995, while attempting to close the rear loading door of a tractor trailer, which had been leased by the defendant to the third defendant. In court, however, is the defendant`s request for summary decision against the plaintiff or, alternatively, contractual compensation against the third-party accused, as well as a motion for partial summary judgment against the defendant. For the following reasons, the defendant`s application for summary decision and the claim for relief, as well as the applicant`s motion for partial summary judgment, are dismissed. With respect to the applicant`s attempt to impose a mandatory or strict liability on Xtra Lease on the basis of CTL`s tenant status as a taker of a vehicle used in intergovernmental trade, the defendant correctly observes that negligence is only possible in itself if the airline against which this form of liability is sought has control of the vehicle.
, but does not comply with the specific rules. See z.B. Johnson v. SOS Transport, 926 F.2d 516 (6. Cir. 1991) (6. Cir. 1991) (by asserting that the tenant could be found negligent if the plaintiff had died as a result of a brake defect while driving a tractor trailer leased as part of a travel lease, where the tenant was responsible as a forcer who had retained control of the vehicle).
Although the applicant`s employer sublet the trailer during CTL`s injury period, CTL, as a tenant (at Xtra Lease) and as a subtenant (to Joseph Eletto), he probably retained control of the trailer, so that it could be considered negligent. However, at this stage, Xtra Lease is not in a position to demonstrate that there is no real question of fact as to which entity retained control of the trailer at the time of the injury. In this regard, the applicants do not argue that the unknown driver did not rent or lease the trailer to XTRA. Instead, the applicants argue that XTRA may be liable if there is a “legal working relationship” between the unknown driver and XTRA. In particular, the applicants argue that a legal employment relationship may exist in cases where a defendant enters into contracts with third parties, such as in the situation where the unknown driver worked for a third party responsible for delivering the XTRA trailer to the taker. See Dolter, 2008 WL 3010062, at `3 (“s]tatutory employment” is a theory that employer liability is imposed even if a working relationship does not exist technically). However, the confidence placed by the applicants in Dolter and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration Regulations (FMCSR), particularly at 49 C.F.R. 390.5, is out of place, as the FMCSR requires that “air carriers that lease vehicles from others “take full responsibility for the operation of the equipment for the duration of the lease.” Dolter, 2008 WL 3010062, at 3 (quote omitted); See also Simpson v.