Foreseeable Avoidance and Proximate Cause in Parked‐Vehicle Collisions

Introduction

Estate of Laura Ratley v. Awad, 23‐6169 (10th Cir. Apr. 22, 2025), presents a tragic collision on the Cimarron Turnpike in Oklahoma. In the pre-dawn hours of April 5, 2017, Ryan Fulcher fell asleep at the wheel and drifted onto the shoulder, striking a Shamrock Foods semitrailer parked by its driver, Dhafer Awad. Laura Ratley and Rebecca Fulcher died; Ryan and Leah Ratley survived with serious injuries. The Fulcher and Ratley families sued Awad and his employer, Shamrock Foods, alleging (1) negligence, (2) negligent hiring/training/supervision/retention, and (3) negligent entrustment. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants on negligence and negligent entrustment, and judgment on the pleadings on negligent hiring. Plaintiffs appealed, asking this court to reverse and—alternatively—certify a question to the Oklahoma Supreme Court. The Tenth Circuit affirmed in full and denied certification.

Summary of the Judgment

Jurisdiction: Diversity under Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins.
Negligence/Proximate Cause: Oklahoma law defines: (1) duty, (2) breach, (3) proximate cause. A “parked‐car” collision is not foreseeable if the drifting driver could have seen and avoided the obstacle. Here Fulcher’s view was unobstructed for over half a mile, the truck was entirely off the travel lane, and Fulcher admitted that, but for dozing, he would have seen the truck. Thus the truck was a “mere condition,” and Fulcher’s inattention was the proximate cause. Summary judgment for Awad and Shamrock Foods was affirmed.
Negligent Hiring, Training, Supervision, Retention: Oklahoma law (Jordan v. Cates) bars a negligent‐hiring claim when the employer admits scope‐of‐employment and stipulates to respondeat superior. The district court granted judgment on the pleadings; affirmed.
Negligent Entrustment: Without actionable negligence against the driver (Awad), negligent‐entrustment against the employer fails; summary judgment was proper.
Certification Request: Plaintiffs’ motion to certify a question to the Oklahoma Supreme Court was denied.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938) – Federal courts in diversity must apply state substantive law.
Dirickson v. Mings, 910 P.2d 1015, 1018–19 (Okla. 1996) – Elements of negligence and foreseeability standard for proximate cause.
Sturdevant v. Kent, 322 P.2d 408 (Okla. 1958) – A driver who fails to look where he is going cannot recover where parked vehicle was in plain sight.
Mote v. Hilyard, 358 P.2d 844 (Okla. 1961) and Ryel v. B. F. Walker, Inc., 527 P.2d 584 (Okla. 1974) – Reinforcing that visibility and opportunity to stop negate proximate‐cause claims in parked‐car collisions.
Hinds v. Warren Transp., Inc., 882 P.2d 1099, 1101 (Okla. Civ. App. 1994) – Parked‐car cases hinge on whether plaintiff could avoid the stationary vehicle.
Jackson v. Jones, 907 P.2d 1067, 1073 (Okla. 1995) – Causation questions are for the court only if no reasonable jury could find a connection.
Jordan v. Cates, 935 P.2d 289 (Okla. 1997) – Bars negligent‐hiring claims when employer admits vicarious liability.

Legal Reasoning

Sitting in diversity, the Tenth Circuit applied Oklahoma negligence law. Under Oklahoma law, proximate cause is tested by foreseeability: could the defendant reasonably anticipate the injury as a probable result of his breach? In “parked‐car” cases, courts ask whether the driver had a practical opportunity to avoid a collision. Here:

The roadway was straight, level, and dry enough for an unobstructed half-mile view.
Awad parked fully off the travel lane, but atop the rumble strips, without deploying lights or warning devices.
Data shows Fulcher drifted second‐by‐second onto the shoulder, then tried to correct too late.
Fulcher admitted that had he stayed awake, he would have seen the truck and swerved back.

Under Sturdevant, Mote, and Ryel, if a driver had adequate time and a clear sightline, failure to look or brake makes the parked vehicle a mere condition, not a cause. Therefore summary judgment on negligence was proper. Likewise, without negligence against Awad, negligent‐entrustment collapses. And under Jordan, shamrock Foods’s admission of vicarious liability bars Plaintiffs from pursuing any negligent‐hiring or supervision claim.

Impact

This decision reinforces two key principles in Oklahoma tort law:

Parked‐Vehicle Rule: A parked vehicle off the travel lane will not be deemed a proximate cause when the drifting motorist could have seen and avoided it. This clarity aids both plaintiffs and defense counsel in framing proximate‐cause disputes in similar “parked‐car” collisions.
Negligent Hiring Limitation: When an employer stipulates to respondeat superior, Oklahoma courts will bar a redundant negligent‐hiring claim (Jordan v. Cates), streamlining litigation against corporate defendants.

Potentially, future drowsy-driving cases near emergency shoulders will turn on split-second visibility and warning device use, prompting both truckers and highway authorities to rethink shoulder-parking policies and safety regulations.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Proximate Cause: The legal link between a defendant’s breach and the harm, tested by what injuries were “reasonably foreseeable.”
Mere Condition: If a negligent actor only creates a scenario that makes an accident possible, and another’s independent act actually causes the injury, the first is not deemed the proximate cause.
Supervening Cause: An unexpected, independent event that breaks the causal chain—absent here because drifting onto the shoulder was foreseeable in context.
Diversity Jurisdiction: Federal courts in diversity apply state substantive law (Erie), here Oklahoma negligence law.
Summary Judgment: Appropriate only when no genuine fact dispute exists and the moving party is entitled to prevail as a matter of law.
Judgment on the Pleadings: Similar to a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal; tests whether the complaint itself states any legally viable claim.
Negligent Hiring/Entrustment: Tort claims against employers for the foreseeability of an employee’s misconduct; here barred either by Jordan or by lack of underlying negligence.

Conclusion

Estate of Laura Ratley v. Awad reaffirms that, under Oklahoma law, a motorist who drifts onto a shoulder and collides with a parked vehicle beyond the travel lane will be held the proximate cause when he had sight and time to avoid it. The Tenth Circuit’s decision underscores the foreseeability test and the “mere condition” rule in parked‐car collisions, and it reinforces that employers who admit scope‐of‐employment cannot be sued for negligent hiring in parallel with respondeat superior. In the broader context, the judgment sharpens the parameters of proximate cause analysis in roadway‐parking cases and clarifies the limits of negligent‐hiring theories under Oklahoma law.