44 The question of summary judgment is therefore whether Le presented contentious or unselected facts, evidence of any necessary element of a joint venture in the TQL/Arora agreement. Mr. Le argues that summary judgment is inappropriate because his expert, Mr. Corsi, felt that there was a joint venture. The indisputable facts are that TQL had used Arora between its first contract with TQL in 2014 and the 2016 accident on more than 500 previous occasions and that TQL had not received any previous reports of collisions or related injuries. At the time of hiring, Arora was a $1,000,000 energy carrier with $1,000,000 in liability insurance. The federal road transport agency`s safety assessment was “Unrated” at the time of the lease. Under this regulatory framework, an air carrier may be “unvalued,” meaning that “no safety advice has been assigned” or is considered “satisfactory,” “conditional” or “unsatisfactory.” 49 C.F.R. 385.3. A satisfactory safety assessment means that an engine does not have adequate safety management controls to ensure compliance with the physical safety standard. Id.
Chhetri v. United States, 1:14-CV-975-ODE, 2014 WL 12116029, at `1 (N.D. Dec. Dec. 19, 2014), aff`d, Chhetri v. United States, 823 F.3d 577 (11. Cir 2016). TQL`s standard contract also required a carrier to notify TQL if it received an unsatisfactory assessment.
We find no evidence that TQL was indeed aware of Arora`s alleged inability to hold. In addition, in The Constructions conducts the degree of control over the selection of drivers on which he insists, necessary to avoid liability for a negligent hiring theory, probably a liability for an agency theory due to excessive control. Accepting this construction would be a judicial overhaul of the law to create a general responsibility of brokers for the actions of the institutions. This does not reflect the existing legislation or the clear intent of the legislators concerned. 6 The core of the first assertion is that TQL is legally the “carrier” of the strawberry cargo, not a freight broker, and is therefore responsible for the actions of the Singh driver on a superior response basis. The centrepiece of the “carriers” argument is a series of statements by different courts that any unit that undertakes to deliver a cargo is a “carrier” under federal law. TQL informed Carrier of the privacy breach in February, and Tom Millikin, TQL`s corporate communications manager, told FreightWaves that the data outage was not a malicious or ransomware attack. The Oklahoma cases reported only discuss carmack`s amendment and associated case law in this context of liability for lost or damaged cargo. We do not find any authority in Oklahoma for the thesis that a “carrier” status attributed to liability for lost and damaged cargo makes a company a “motor carrier” for all federal traffic regulations, or state responses to higher claims. 22 In addition, the applicant`s expert, Mr.
Corsi, noted several cases of “control” that appear to have no connection with Singh`s driver, including contractual requirements that “the institution agitate all rights against the shipper” and a form of “non-invitation clause” prohibiting air carriers from entering into direct contracts with denspedateurs for a period following the use of the services. Mr. Corsi also indicated that TQL, on a web page for potential customers, indicated that it maintained “control of the shipment through a detailed mailing and review of the appeal policy” and that it contacted drivers “at least twice a day” to provide status updates. The case is the cause of a traffic accident on Interstate 40 near Mustang, Oklahoma.