Kossuth Trucking, Inc. v. Caterpillar, Inc.

¶ 27. I respectfully dissent. I believe Kossuth Trucking has established a question of material fact as to whether an agency relationship existed between Caterpillar and MHC, including Caterpillar’s duty to properly train MHC mechanics, which renders summary judgment inappropriate. I base my conclusion upon the following facts.2

¶ 28. Caterpillar’s marketing program employs two levels of personnel to market its manufactured parts. It refers to these two levels of personnel as “Dealers” and “Second Level Dealers” or “Users.” Each Dealer has a specified territory. The Dealer is responsible for…