Call v. Sentra Logistics LLC et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
CENTRAL DIVISION
BETH CALL, Individually and as Special
Administrator of the Estate of Jeffrey
James Call, Deceased
v. 	No. 4:23-cv-903-DPM
SENTRA LOGISTICS, LLC; JA V ARUS
DE'VON OWENS; JOHN DOES 1-5; 	and
JOHN DOE CORPORATIONS 1-5
ORDER
PLAINTIFF
DEFENDANTS
1. 	Two eighteen-wheelers collided on the interstate. 	One was
a Sentra truck, driven by Javarus Owens. 	Jeffrey Call drove the other
truck. 	Jeffrey was severely injured, and died a few months after the
crash. 	Beth Call, as the special administrator of Jeffrey's estate, has
brought 	claims 	against 	Sentra, 	Owens, 	and 	various 	John 	Does.
Among 	other 	particulars, 	she 	alleges 	Sentra 	negligently 	hired 	and
supervised 	Owens. 	Call also seeks 	punitive 	damages . 	Sentra has
admitted that it's vicariously liable for Owens' s actions. 	Doc. 62 at ,r 9.
Those two defendants now move for partial summary judgment on two
issues: 	(1) 	punitive damages; 	and (2) duplicative liability. 	At this
point, the Court takes all the evidence in the light most favorable to
Call, and draws all reasonable inferences in her favor. 	Van Dorn v.
Hunter, 919 F.3d 541,544 (8th Cir. 2019).
Case 4:23-cv-00903-DPM Document 105 Filed 11/06/25 Page 1 of 4

2. 	The material facts are few. 	In a rural area, Owens pulled his
Sentra 	onto 	the 	shoulder 	of 	the 	interstate 	to 	use 	the 	restroom.
Afterward, he began merging onto the highway. 	Call approached in
his truck. The unenhanced video from Call' s dashcam does not clearly
show that Owens's hazard lights were on. 	Doc. 77-1. 	A reasonable fact
finder could conclude that they were not. Call' struck ran into Owens' s.
Call died several months later from his injuries. Owens was unharmed.
He takes medicine for schizophrenia, which he did not disclose in his
Department of Transportation medical examination. 	Doc. 90-4.
Based on all this, Call seeks punitive damages. 	But Arkansas law
is strict: 	there must be clear and convincing evidence of malice - a
purpose to injure or damage - 	or such reckless disregard of potential
1nJury 	that 	malice 	may 	be 	inferred. 	Ark. 	Code. 	Ann.
§§ 16-55-206 & 16-55-207. 	"Negligence alone, however gross, is not
enough to sustain punitive damages." 	Alpha Zeta Chapter of Pi Kappa
Alpha Fraternity by Damron v. Sullivan, 293 Ark. 576,585, 740 S.W.2d 127,
132 (1987). 	In vehicle-accident cases, Arkansas courts have allowed
punitive damage claims to go to the jury when there's racing, drinking,
or drug-related impairment involved. 	Turner v. Rosewarren, 250 Ark.
119, 125-26, 464 S.W.2d 569, 572-73 	(1971); 	Honeycutt v. 	Walden,
294 Ark. 440,442, 743 S.W.2d 809,810 (1988); National Bank of Commerce
v. McNeill Trucking Co ., Inc., 309 Ark. 80, 88, 828 S.W.2d 584, 588 (1992)
(Dudley, J. concurring). 	Otherwise, these claims do not go forward.
-2-
Case 4:23-cv-00903-DPM Document 105 Filed 11/06/25 Page 2 of 4

E.g., Sullivan, 293 Ark. at 587, 740 S.W.2d at 132-33; 	Elrod v. G & R
Construction 	Co., 	275 	Ark. 	151, 	155, 	628 	S.W.2d 	17, 	19 	(1982);
National By-Products, 	Inc. 	v. 	Searcy House Moving 	Co., 	292 Ark. 491,
494-95, 731 S.W.2d 194, 196-97 (1987). 	The facts 	here 	are sad and
unfortunate, but there's no evidence of malice. 	Whether Owens acted
with reckless disregard sufficient to support an inference of malice is a
closer question. 	Ark. Code. Ann. 	§ 16-55-206(1). 	Call notes Owens's
undisclosed 	schizophrenia 	diagnosis 	and 	related 	prescription.
But there's no evidence linking Owens's mental health or medication
to the accident. 	On the existing record, no jury question is presented.
The 	proof 	of 	reckless 	disregard 	is 	not 	clear 	and 	convincing.
Call's punitive damages claim therefore fails as a matter of law.
3. 	Call claims Sentra negligently hired and supervised Owens.
Doc. 59 at 7-8. 	Sentra agrees that it's vicariously liable for Owens's
conduct. 	Doc. 	62 at ,r 9. 	In these circumstances, Arkansas allows a
plaintiff to proceed on either a respondeat superior theory or a negligent
hiring theory, not both. 	Elrod, 275 Ark. at 154,628 S.W.2d at 19.
But what about the "policies and procedures" exception to Elrod?
Doc. 124 at 6-8 in Regions Bank v. White, No. 4:06-cv-1475-JLH (E.D. Ark.
24 September 2009). 	Call alleges that Sentra failed to have adequate
policies and training in place to ensure everyone's safety. 	Doc. 59 at
7-8. 	Sentra's owner, Almir Huremovic, testified that the company did
not provide the Department of Transportation's safety manual to its
-3-
Case 4:23-cv-00903-DPM Document 105 Filed 11/06/25 Page 3 of 4

drivers - 	because the drivers had a habit of not reading that manual.
Doc. 90-5 at 3-4. 	Sentra didn't have a safety training program, either.
Doc. 90-5 at 4. 	Sentra' s failure to provide a safety manual or a safety
training program falls under the "policy and procedures" exception.
E.g., 	Doc. 	124 at 6-8 	in Regions; 	Doc. 	42 at 3-5 in Crouch v. 	Master
Woodcraft Cabinetry, LLC, No. 2:20-cv-78-KGB (E.D. Ark. 13 September
2021); 	Doc. 	189 	at 	7-9 	in 	McLane 	v. 	Rich 	Transport, 	Inc., 	No.
2:11-cv-101-KGB 	(E.D. 	Ark 	9 	August 	2012). 	Call' s 	direct
negligent-hiring and negligent-retention claims fail because Sentra has
accepted 	responsibility 	for 	Owens' s 	acts 	and 	ormss1ons;
her direct negligent-training claim proceeds.
*
Motion 	for 	partial 	summary 	judgment 	on 	punitive 	damages,
Doc. 	77, 	granted. 	Second 	motion 	for 	partial 	summary 	judgment,
Doc. 80, partly granted and partly denied as specified. 	Status report,
Doc. 101, appreciated.
So Ordered.
D.P. Marshall Jr.
United States District Judge
-4-
Case 4:23-cv-00903-DPM Document 105 Filed 11/06/25 Page 4 of 4