Negligence – Claims narrowed in trucking accident

Where defendants sued by a truck driver who was injured in an automobile accident moved for judgment on the pleadings, the driver’s negligent hiring, retention, entrustment and training claims were dismissed, but his statutory per se claims survived the motion.

Background

In this diversity jurisdiction personal injury case, the plaintiff claims that while he was asleep in the cab of his tractor-trailer truck in a parking lot, the defendant truck driver negligently backed his truck into the plaintiff’s truck, causing plaintiff severe injuries as well as property damage. Liability is also asserted against the defendant driver’s employer. After filing an answer, the defendants have filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings.

Analysis

The defendants first seek judgment on the basis that the complaint alleges claims of negligent hiring, retention, entrustment and training of the defendant driver without factual support. While the plaintiff now disclaims any present intent to assert such claims, the complaint speaks otherwise, and I will strike all such assertions from the complaint.

The defendants next seek judgment on the basis that the statutory per se standards set forth in Count Two do not apply since the plaintiff has not alleged facts showing that the parking lot where the accident occurred was considered to be a “highway” in that it had unrestricted access to the public for vehicular travel. While the plaintiff may have to prove those characteristics later in the case, I find that the complaint adequately complies with the notice and plausibility federal pleading standards by referring to the location of the accident as a “parking lot.”

The defendants next seek judgment on the basis that the factual allegations of the answer filed by the defendants entitle the defendants to judgment on the ground of the plaintiff’s contributory negligence because the plaintiff has not contested those facts. While it is true that on a Rule 12(c) motion, an answer may be considered as well as the complaint, the test applicable for judgment on the pleadings is whether or not, when viewed in the light most favorable to the party against whom the motion is made, genuine issues of material fact remain or whether the case can be decided as a matter of law. Because the plaintiff was not required by the rules to respond to the answer, all allegations contained therein are considered denied or avoided.

Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings granted in part, denied in part.

Lizama v. Levchenko, Case No. 1:25-cv-00038, Feb. 9, 2026. WDVA at Abingdon (Jones). VLW 026-3-067. 4 pp.

Full-Text Opinion

VLW 026-3-067
Virginia Lawyers Weekly