— A motion sensor on Volvo’s tailgate sparked a lawsuit claiming Volvo and an employee were responsible for the injuries of a New Jersey resident.
But Volvo says the employee was unaware when the incident occurred.
Plaintiff Megan Kohr sued Volvo and employee Jennifer Henry following the incident that occurred on October 15, 2023.
According to the motion sensor lawsuit, plaintiff Megan Kohr and defendant Jennifer Henry had gone for a walk and after the walk returned to the parked Volvo, a vehicle equipped with a power liftgate and a hands-free motion sensor under the rear bumper.
The tailgate was open while plaintiff Kohr stood at the rear of the vehicle, but that tailgate could be opened or closed with a simple movement of the foot.
The Volvo lawsuit alleges that Jennifer Henry’s dog walked under the tailgate and activated the motion sensor that sent a signal to the tailgate to close. The plaintiff complains that the tailgate struck her in the head, causing “serious, serious and permanent injuries.”
According to the lawsuit, Volvo and its employee Jennifer Henry are both liable for the damages suffered by the plaintiff.
Kohr claims Henry was negligent and careless for allowing her dog to activate the tailgate’s motion sensor. And Henry was driving a company car at the time of the incident, which would also make Volvo responsible.
“Plaintiff has had to suffer great pain and anguish and will have to suffer in the future great pain and anguish; has been caused to lose time by work and will in the future lose time by work; has been caused to incur medical expenses and will have to incur medical expenses in the future; has been and will in the future be disabled and prevented from attending to her necessary affairs and affairs.” — Lawsuit motion sensor Volvo tailgate
Volvo’s response
The automaker filed a motion to dismiss the tailgate motion sensor lawsuit, but recently filed new documents informing the court that two claims should not proceed.
According to Volvo, neither a vicarious liability claim against Volvo nor a negligent attribution claim can be sustained in court because employee Jennifer Henry “was not employed by Volvo at the time of the accident.”
Volvo states that an employer is generally not liable for damage caused by an employee when using a vehicle owned by the employer “where the use is not within the scope of the employee’s work.”
The automaker points to a 1978 New Jersey court ruling to support its position that the employer’s liability only applies if the vehicle is used by the employee “for the purpose of furthering the employer’s business or interests, as opposed to the employee’s private business.” [employee].”
Jennifer Henry was driving a Volvo company car that day, but she was not driving the car at the time of the incident. She was also not “clocked in” and not doing business for Volvo when the incident occurred.
“Under New Jersey law, an employer may be held vicariously liable for an employee’s negligence if the employee was acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the event.” — Volvo
And Volvo told the judge that it is only liable under a negligent entrustment theory if it had custody or control of the vehicle so that it could grant or deny permission to drive that vehicle.
The Volvo tailgate motion sensor lawsuit was filed in Ocean County New Jersey Superior Court: Megan Kohr v. Volvo Car USA, LLC, et al.
The plaintiff is represented by Levinson Axelrod, PA
How the Volvo motion sensor on the tailgate works
#Volvo #claims #tailgate #motion #sensor #claims #fail