Sperl v. C. H. Robinson Appeal Denied by the Illinois Supreme Court -- $23.775 million dollar Verdict Stands
The Illinois Supreme Court has denied C. H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.’s Petition for Leave to Appeal on September 28, 2011. Sperl v. C. H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., 2011 Ill. LEXIS 1450 (Ill. Sept. 28, 2011). (Mandate will issue on November 1, 2011.) Many recall that in September 2009 a Will County, Illinois jury determined that C.H. Robinson was, in fact, vicariously liable for the actions of the motor carrier’s driver based on an agency theory and awarded $23,775,000 to the plaintiffs. In affirming the jury’s finding the appellate court held that a principal-agent relationship existed between C.H. Robinson and the motor carrier’s driver. The Supreme Court’s denial means that (at least one appellate district in) Illinois recognizes a cause of action for broker liability based upon an agency theory. As we reported previously, the Third Appellate District noted that the “cardinal consideration” is an examination of the right to control the manner of work performed, regardless of whether that right was actually exercised. Sperl v. C. H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., 408 Ill. App. 3d 1051, 946 N.E.2d 463 (3d Dist. 2011).
Previously, we wrote:
This decision follows a line of other cases around the country that continue to crack the door open further on theories of expanded liability facing companies in the commercial transportation industry. There is no doubt that Sperl is a very fact specific case. In Illinois, as in many jurisdictions, however, whenever the plaintiff’s bar is given a new theory to throw at the wall, they will try and see if it sticks. We anticipate that the plaintiff’s bar in Illinois will add these allegations wherever possible and see if their fishing expedition lands a big one. No clear litmus test was offered by the Appellate Court delineating the minimum necessary facts needed to establish expanded liability.
In practice, since Sperl we have seen an increase in matters where the broker or other entities’ liability question is either being alleged directly in the plaintiff’s complaint or pursued via subpoena or the use of naming other entities involved with the carriage as respondents in discovery. We again, suggest that practical and prepared companies in the commercial transportation industry review not only their practices, but their insurance coverages and risk mitigation activities. As has been shown a, failing to do so can be bad for your bottom line.
To review our prior reporting on the Sperl decision, click here.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Lew Bricker at 312-894-3224 or Sandra Engelking at 312-894-3287.