Jessica Ferrer and her companion, Katherine Winslow, were injured when a taxicab driven by Tesfamariam Okbamicael struck the two of them as they crossed the street. Okbamicael worked for Yellow Cab, which owned the taxicab.

Ferrer brought this lawsuit against Okbamicael and Yellow Cab alleging that the driver, Okbamicael, was negligent and that Yellow Cab was vicariously liable for the driver’s negligence under the doctrine of respondeat superior.

Ferrer also alleged that Yellow Cab was liable for her injuries suffered in the crash under the theories of direct negligence (negligence as a common carrier) and negligent entrustment, negligent hiring, supervision and training.

In an amended answer to their complaint, Yellow Cab admitted that the driver, Okbamicael, was an employee acting within the scope and course of his employment with Yellow Cab at the time of this incident.

The defendants then moved for partial judgment on the pleadings seeking to dismiss Ferrer’s direct negligence claims against Yellow Cab.

The trial judge granted the defendants’ motion applying the rule from McHaffie v. Bunch, 891 S.W. 2d 822 (Mo. 1995), that an employer’s admission of vicarious liability for an employee’s negligence bars a plaintiff’s direct negligence claims against the employer.

The state supreme court agreed with the trial court’s application of the McHaffie rule.

In re Ferrer, Colorado Supreme Court, 2017 CO 14 (Feb. 27, 2017).

Kreisman Law Offices has been successfully handling pedestrian accident cases, bicycle accident cases, motorcycle injury cases, car accidents and truck accident injury cases for individuals and families who have been injured or killed by the negligence of another for more than 40 years, in and around Chicago, Cook County and its surrounding areas, including Bedford Park, Evergreen Park, Merionette Park, Calumet Park, Alsip, Palos Park, Palos Heights, LaGrange Park, Western Springs, Burr Ridge, Countryside and Hinsdale, Ill.

Related blog posts:

Illinois Appellate Court Finds that Restriction on Order Regarding Motion in Limine Does Not Prevent Other Party from Attempting to Enter Evidence for a Permitted Use

U.S. Court of Appeals Affirms in Part Dismissal of Product Defect Case at Construction Site, Spoliation Claim

Illinois Appellate Court Finds that Restriction on Order Regarding Motion in Limine Does Not Prevent Other Party from Attempting to Enter Evidence for a Permitted Use