Strategies, Challenges, and Answers

Motor Carrier Admits That Its Driver Was In The Course And Scope of Employment. Court Dismisses Allegations Of Negligent Entrustment / Training

Blonde woman truck driver talking on her radio.In the case of Adele v. Dunn, 2013 WL 1314944, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44602 (D.Nev. 2013), the U.S. District Court, District of Nevada faced the question of whether the claims of negligent training or negligent entrustment can survive where the motor carrier has admitted that its driver was in the course and scope of employment at the time of the accident.

In its opinion, the court acknowledged that there was no controlling precedent in Nevada.  It then considered law from other states and commentators.  While there are certain states that allow such claims to go forward, the court found those states to be in the minority.  Upon analysis, the court decided that when asked, Nevada would follow the majority rule.  The court determined that “where the direct claim of negligent entrustment, or negligent training, serve only as alternative theories by which to impute liability to an employer for the acts of the employee, such claims are superfluous and redundant.”  Id. at 3.

The Adele decision became the basis for the court’s decision to dismiss negligent entrustment claims in Cuadras-Barraza v. Stringer, Case No. 2:13-cv-01627-GMN-VCF (D. Nev. Nov. 15, 2013).  While there may be exceptions, the Adele analysis is where the law seems headed.

If you have questions about any of the exceptions to this rule or any other issue of trucking in law in Nevada, don’t hesitate to call Mike Mills at 702-240-6060×114 or email him at


  1. […] an earlier post HERE, the Nevada Trucking Law Blog called attention to decisions coming out of the U.S. District Court […]

  2. […] the case of Adele v. Dunn, 2013 WL 1314944, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44602 (D. Nev. 2013), discussed HERE, courts have said that the Nevada Supreme Court would follow the McHaffie rule.  See Gonzalez v. […]