Because the driver knew the sleep apnea history, the shipping company can not assume the punitive damages liability. The court, Achy v. Approved a summary judgment motion on Crete Carrier Corporation, No. 07-cv-3592 (EDPa, determined on 30th March 2009 - District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania). In Achey, plaintiffs punitive damages against the carrier based on negligent fatal / reckless entrustment. Plaintiffs are based on claims based on continued employment of drivers diagnosed as sleep apnea. The driver tested that it was diagnosed as sleep apnea in 1992, but did not significantly affect driving ability. He further tested that he underwent surgery in 1992, but there was no difference in the level of fatigue.
Whether the driver was sleeping apnea at the time of the accident was "hotly contested". However, the court found that even though fatigue and drowsiness were symptoms of sleep apnea (the court determined that it was not from the Merck Manual), the court finds evidence that the driver suffered so far Symptoms of fatigue or drowsiness as a result of suspicious sleep apnea which could not be done. The court stated that purely the driver suffered several snorings as a result of sleep apnea, and experienced sleepiness at one point does not mean drowsiness due to sleep apnea.
The court said the plaintiffs did not present experts associating sleep apnea and drowsiness. Without the expert's testimony, the court can not bind the two. Plaintiffs attempted to connect using a traffic safety professional. The expert said that cumulative fatigue and driver's sleep apnea are the cause of the accident. The movement of the limousine was submitted challenging traffic professionals' qualification for such an opinion. In response to movement in Lymne, plaintiffs withdrew their opinions on sleep apnea and / or cumulative fatigue and agreed that either factor contributed to the accident.
There was no opinion of qualified experts on this issue, plaintiff's argument failed and a summary judgment was granted. The plaintiff further insisted on punitive damages claims based on what the carrier had claimed about the danger that the driver would fall asleep on the wheel based on the record. The court granted petition for a summary judgment based on the lack of evidence that the carrier consciously recognized the risk. The court pointed out that the driver is considered medically eligible by his successful DOT body. There was a history of sleep apnea being treated, but there was no evidence that the carrier knew or knew that the driver could be asleep in the car.
The plaintiffs then tried to make a nexus, arguing that the violation of the driver's driving record would have warned the carrier. The court rejected the violation again as evidence that the carrier is aware of the risk of the driver experiencing fatigue behind the car. The court ruled, arguing that there was no evidence of violation of the driver's work regulation on this accident. Therefore, the court granted petition for summary judgment.
