Four Killed Near Dayton Airport: How Families Hold a Drunk Driver's Employer Accountable

Published June 13, 2024 · Verdicts & Settlements

Four people riding in the same vehicle died on April 1 in a crash on Airport Access Road at Boeing Drive, near Dayton International Airport. For their families, the weeks since have brought funerals, unanswered questions, and now the first steps toward accountability in court.

On June 7, WHIO reported that the wife of one of the men killed, Richard Turnbull, had filed a $10 million lawsuit on behalf of herself and his estate. Our thoughts are with every family touched by this crash. Because the suit raises questions that come up in many serious Dayton-area cases, involving an allegedly impaired driver in a vehicle used for work, it is worth explaining how Ohio law approaches them.

What has been reported

The following comes from WHIO's June 7 report. We have no involvement in the case and offer no opinion on its merits.

• According to the lawsuit, the driver, Clayton Hughes, was driving a Volvo SUV for a Columbus company.
• The suit alleges he was speeding and driving under the influence, and it seeks $10 million for "negligence, recklessness, and wanton misconduct," along with the family's mental and emotional anguish.
• The Ohio State Highway Patrol's original crash report stated, "Impairment is suspected of being a factor in both of the crashes." Troopers believe Hughes was involved in a hit-and-run on Interstate 70 moments before the airport crash.
• According to the updated crash report, troopers performed breath, urine and blood tests, but WHIO reported that the results had not been posted. A final report on his speed was still pending.

These are allegations and preliminary findings. Any criminal case proceeds separately and has its own standards. Nothing here should be read as a conclusion about what the evidence will ultimately show.

The driver is not the only one who can be responsible

When someone is killed by an impaired driver, the driver's own insurance is often far too small for the loss. Ohio law recognizes several ways other parties can share responsibility. Which ones apply depends entirely on the facts, but every family should know they exist.

Respondeat superior: the employer answers for work driving

Under the doctrine of respondeat superior (Latin for "let the master answer"), an employer is liable for harm its employee causes while acting within the scope of employment. The Supreme Court of Ohio applied that principle in Osborne v. Lyles, 63 Ohio St.3d 326 (1992), and held that whether an employee was acting within the scope of employment is generally a question of fact for the jury.

In a vehicle case, the key questions are often: Was the driver on the clock? Was the trip for the employer's business? Did the employer provide the vehicle? Was the driver on an errand of his own? A company vehicle does not automatically make the company liable, but it is a strong starting point, and the answer usually turns on records the company holds: schedules, GPS and telematics, fuel and expense records, and communications.

Negligent entrustment: who gave him the keys

A separate claim does not depend on whether the driver was working at the time. In Gulla v. Straus, 154 Ohio St. 193 (1950), the Supreme Court of Ohio recognized that a vehicle owner may be liable for knowingly entrusting a vehicle to an incompetent driver, either with actual knowledge or with knowledge implied from known facts and circumstances. The Court explained that this liability rests on the owner's own negligence, not on respondeat superior, and that when the owner entrusts a vehicle to someone known to be incompetent, for example because of intoxication, responsibility can follow the vehicle even beyond the scope of the permission given.

For a business, that raises questions about what the company knew: the employee's driving record, prior incidents, any history with alcohol or drugs, and whether it checked. Negligent hiring, supervision and retention claims can raise similar questions.

Others who may share responsibility

If a bar or restaurant served alcohol to a noticeably intoxicated person who then caused a crash, Ohio's dram-shop statute, R.C. 4399.18, may allow a claim against the permit holder. Investigation into where the driver was in the hours before a crash is part of building a complete case.

Punitive damages and the employer

Ohio allows punitive damages, which punish rather than compensate, only in limited circumstances. Under R.C. 2315.21(C)(1), they require proof of malice or aggravated or egregious fraud. An employer can be liable for punitive damages only if, as a principal or master, it knowingly authorized, participated in, or ratified the employee's conduct. Our 2022 post on punitive damages against drunk drivers explains how Ohio courts have treated impaired driving under that standard.

Why the insurance picture matters

Commercial and business auto policies frequently carry much higher limits than personal policies, and many businesses also have umbrella or excess coverage. When four people are killed in one crash, the families may be competing for the same limited pool of insurance. Identifying every policy, including the families' own uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage, is one of the first jobs in a case like this. Our guide chapter on what your case is worth explains why insurance limits often matter as much as liability.

Civil and criminal cases run on separate tracks

Families are sometimes told to wait for the criminal case to finish. They do not have to. A civil wrongful-death claim is a separate action, decided under a lower burden of proof (the preponderance of the evidence, rather than proof beyond a reasonable doubt), and it seeks compensation for the family rather than punishment by the state. A wrongful-death action generally must be filed within two years after the death under R.C. 2125.02(F)(1). Our guide chapter on deadlines and the timeline of an Ohio injury case explains how these clocks work.

Evidence in the criminal case, such as crash reconstruction and test results, can be important to the civil case. But some of the most important civil evidence, including company records, vehicle telematics, and records of where the driver was before the crash, is not collected by prosecutors and must be preserved through the civil claim.

What this means for you

If a loved one was killed or seriously injured by a driver who was impaired, speeding, or driving for work:

• Ask whose vehicle it was and whether the driver was working.
• Do not wait for the criminal case. Preservation letters to the employer and insurers should go out early.
• Get a personal representative appointed through the probate court so a wrongful-death claim can be filed.
• Be cautious with insurers. Do not give recorded statements or sign releases before talking to a lawyer.

Our wrongful death practice and car crash practice handle these cases for families throughout the Miami Valley.