The kidnapping and murder of seven-year-old Athena Strand by a FedEx driver shocked the public not only because of its brutality, but because of the circumstances under which it occurred. The fact that the perpetrator was a delivery driver actively working his route raises difficult questions about trust, safety, and the liability of FedEx—the company that hired him. As the criminal case has concluded and a civil lawsuit moves forward, attention has shifted toward whether a company like FedEx can or should bear any legal responsibility for the actions of someone operating under its banner. Examining this case alongside similar incidents and established legal principles provides a clearer understanding of when companies may be held accountable for violent crimes committed by their workers—and unfortunately, wrongful deaths.
The Kidnapping and Murder of Athena Strand
The killing of Athena Strand, a seven-year-old girl from Paradise, Texas, is one of the more disturbing criminal cases in recent years involving a delivery driver. According to investigators, the incident began on November 30, 2022, when a FedEx contract driver named Tanner Horner arrived in the area to deliver a package. At some point during his route, Horner encountered Athena near her home. Authorities later stated that he accidentally struck her with his vehicle, which triggered a sequence of decisions that escalated into a far more serious crime.
Rather than reporting the incident or seeking help, Horner allegedly panicked and abducted the child. Prosecutors later explained that he placed Athena in his delivery vehicle and left the scene. Evidence presented in court indicated that she was still alive at the time of the abduction. The situation rapidly deteriorated as Horner made the decision to kill her, ultimately strangling her during the course of the crime. Her disappearance led to an urgent search effort involving local authorities and the community.
Law enforcement was able to identify Horner relatively quickly through digital tracking data associated with his delivery route. He was arrested within hours of Athena being reported missing. Two days later, her body was discovered in the Trinity River. The case moved swiftly through the legal system, and Horner ultimately pleaded guilty to capital murder and aggravated kidnapping. The circumstances of the crime, particularly the transition from an accidental incident to a deliberate killing, have been central to both the criminal proceedings and subsequent civil litigation.
Could FedEx be Held Liable for this Murder?
The question of whether FedEx can be held legally responsible for the actions of Tanner Horner depends on well-established principles in tort law, particularly the doctrine of vicarious liability. Under this doctrine, an employer may be held liable for the actions of an employee if those actions occur within the scope of employment. This typically applies to situations such as traffic accidents or negligence during the performance of job duties. However, intentional acts of violence, especially crimes as severe as kidnapping and murder, are generally considered outside the scope of employment.
Courts usually draw a distinction between actions that further an employer’s business and those that represent a complete departure from it. In this case, although Horner was on duty and operating within his delivery route, the decision to abduct and kill a child is viewed as a personal, intentional act that does not serve any business purpose. This makes it difficult to argue that FedEx should be automatically liable for the crime itself under traditional vicarious liability standards. Employers are not typically held responsible for unforeseeable, extreme criminal acts committed by employees acting independently of their job duties.
That said, liability is not limited to vicarious liability alone. Plaintiffs may pursue claims based on negligence, arguing that the company failed in its duty to properly screen, hire, or supervise the individual. If it can be shown that FedEx or its contracting partners overlooked warning signs, failed to conduct adequate background checks, or allowed someone with a known history of dangerous behavior to work in a position of public trust, the company could potentially face legal consequences. The outcome would depend heavily on the specific facts uncovered during litigation, particularly regarding what the company knew or should have known before employing Horner.
Athena’s Family’s Lawsuit
Following the criminal case, Athena Strand’s family filed a civil lawsuit seeking damages from FedEx and associated parties connected to the driver’s employment. The lawsuit does not attempt to argue that FedEx directly committed the crime, but instead focuses on the company’s role in placing Horner in a position where the crime could occur. This includes examining the hiring practices, oversight, and operational structure of FedEx’s delivery system, particularly its use of independent contractors.
According to the plaintiff’s pleading which has been filed, they are suing for damages to recover “past and future medical and burial expenses; past and future pain and suffering; past and future mental anguish; past and future lost earning capacity; past and future lost income; past and future loss of consortium; past and future loss of society and companionship; and past and future loss of enjoyment of life.”
FedEx Ground operates under a model in which many drivers are employed by third-party contractors rather than directly by the corporation. This structure has been the subject of legal scrutiny in multiple cases, as it allows the company to argue that it does not have direct control over individual drivers. However, plaintiffs in cases like this often challenge that characterization by pointing to the level of control FedEx exerts over routes, uniforms, branding, and delivery procedures. If a court determines that the company maintains significant control, it may weaken the argument that the driver was solely the responsibility of an independent contractor.
The family’s lawsuit is likely to explore whether FedEx and its contractors exercised reasonable care in hiring and supervising Horner. This could include reviewing his employment history, any prior incidents, and whether proper background checks were conducted. The case may also address broader systemic issues, such as whether the company’s operational model creates gaps in accountability. While civil litigation cannot undo the harm caused, it serves as a mechanism for examining institutional responsibility and potentially prompting changes in corporate practices.
Athena Strand’s family’s lawsuit makes the claim that “Big Topspin and FedEx Ground supplied Defendant Horner with the FedEx vehicle that he drove to Athena Strand’s home as well as a FedEx Ground uniform to wear”…“Big Topspin and FedEx Ground knew or should have known that Defendant Horner would use the motor vehicle in a manner involving an unreasonable risk of harm” and “The death of Athena Strand resulted from Defendant Homer’s use of his FedEx Ground uniform and vehicle”.
For these reasons, the family is looking to hold Big Topspin and FedEx Ground liable for the death of Athena Strand.
Legal Analysis of the Lawsuit Against FedEx
The lawsuit against FedEx centers on whether the company can be held civilly liable for the actions of Tanner Horner, despite the fact that his crimes were intentional and far outside the normal duties of a delivery driver. For FedEx to be found liable, the plaintiffs must move beyond the traditional framework of vicarious liability and instead establish that the company itself acted negligently in a way that contributed to the conditions under which the crime occurred. This shifts the legal focus away from the act of murder itself and toward the systems, decisions, and oversight mechanisms that allowed Horner to be in that position.
One of the primary legal theories the plaintiffs are likely to rely on is negligent hiring. To succeed on this claim, they would need to prove that FedEx or its contracted service provider failed to conduct a reasonable background check or ignored information that would have indicated Horner posed a foreseeable risk. This does not require proving that the company could have predicted a murder specifically, but rather that there were warning signs of dangerous behavior that a reasonable employer would have taken seriously. If Horner had a criminal history, prior complaints, or behavioral red flags that were overlooked or inadequately reviewed, this element becomes significantly stronger.
Another key avenue is negligent supervision or retention. Under this theory, the plaintiffs must demonstrate that FedEx or its contractor failed to properly monitor Horner’s conduct or respond appropriately to any prior incidents during his employment. This could include evidence that the company lacked adequate oversight mechanisms, failed to enforce safety protocols, or ignored complaints about the driver’s behavior. The legal question becomes whether the company exercised reasonable care in supervising someone placed in a role that involves unsupervised access to residential areas and interaction with the public.
A further complication arises from FedEx’s use of independent contractors for its Ground delivery operations. FedEx will likely argue that Horner was not its direct employee but rather worked for a third-party contractor, thereby insulating the corporation from liability. For the plaintiffs to overcome this defense, they would need to show that FedEx exercised sufficient control over the driver’s work to establish an agency relationship in practice, even if not in name. This could involve demonstrating that FedEx dictated routes, schedules, appearance, and delivery procedures to such an extent that the contractor operated more like an extension of the company than an independent entity.
In analyzing the likely outcome of the case, the most critical factor will be the presence or absence of foreseeability. Courts are generally reluctant to hold companies liable for extreme, intentional crimes unless there is a clear indication that the risk was predictable and preventable. If no significant red flags existed in Horner’s background or employment record, it will be difficult for the plaintiffs to establish that FedEx or its contractor should have anticipated such behavior. In that scenario, the company is likely to avoid liability for the core act of violence.
However, if evidence emerges showing that Horner had a troubling history that was ignored, or that the hiring and supervision processes were materially deficient, the case becomes more favorable to the plaintiffs. Even then, liability may not extend fully to FedEx itself but could instead fall more heavily on the contracting company directly responsible for employing the driver. In many similar cases, outcomes involve settlements rather than definitive court rulings, as companies seek to limit legal exposure and reputational damage without admitting fault.
Cases of Companies Being Held Liable for Employee Violent Crimes
Real-world cases show that companies are sometimes held liable for violent crimes committed by employees, but only under very specific circumstances. The most important factor across these cases is not the violence itself, but whether the employer’s actions made that violence foreseeable or preventable. Courts consistently focus on whether the company failed to exercise reasonable care in hiring, supervising, or retaining the employee, rather than simply punishing the employer for the employee’s independent criminal conduct.
One recent and highly relevant example is a 2025 case in Baltimore involving a maintenance worker named Jason Billingsley. He carried out an extremely violent assault against residents in a property where he worked, and a jury ultimately awarded more than $21 million in damages against the landlord and property management company. The key fact in that case was that Billingsley had a documented history of violent crimes, including prior sex offenses, and the companies failed to conduct even a basic background check before hiring him. The court found that the harm was not only severe, but also foreseeable, because the employee’s past clearly indicated he posed a danger in a role that gave him access to residents’ homes.
When an employer hires someone with a violent or dangerous history and places them in a position where they can harm others, courts are far more willing to impose liability. In contrast, when an employee has no known history or warning signs, courts tend to view the crime as an unforeseeable personal act. The difference between liability and non-liability often hinges on whether a reasonable background check or basic due diligence would have revealed a serious risk.
There are also cases where courts have found companies liable under the theory of vicarious liability, particularly when the employee’s role inherently involves confrontation or authority. In the UK case Mohamud v. Wm Morrison Supermarkets, a gas station employee assaulted a customer during an interaction that began as part of his job duties. The Supreme Court held the employer liable because the assault was closely connected to the employee’s role and occurred during a continuous sequence of events tied to his work responsibilities. The court emphasized that the employee was acting within the “field of activities” assigned to him, even though the conduct escalated into violence.
Similarly, in Mattis v. Pollock, an employer was held liable when a nightclub bouncer assaulted a patron after an earlier confrontation. The court found that the employee’s job involved maintaining order and dealing with conflict, making the violent escalation sufficiently connected to his duties. These cases illustrate that even intentional violence can fall within the scope of employment if it arises directly from the type of work the employee was hired to perform.
At the same time, many cases go the opposite direction if the connection is weaker. In Ledet v. Mills Vans Lines, for example, a court refused to impose liability for an employee’s criminal assault because there was no evidence that the employer’s hiring practices were the direct cause of the attack. Even if hiring practices were imperfect, the court required a clear causal link between the employer’s negligence and the specific harm that occurred.
Athena Strand’s pleading also mentions several other specific instances of violent crimes committed by FedEx drivers. According to the pleading, “FedEx Ground delivery drivers have recently committed numerous assaults, rapes and murders of persons across the country. In each of these cases FedEx stated that they were “appalled”. In 2021 a New York a delivery driver lured teenagers into his FedEx delivery vehicle and sexually assaulted the teenagers. In 2022 a FedEx driver located in Utica, New York murdered a woman on his route and burned her house to the ground. In March of 2022 a FedEx driver in Connecticut broke into a woman’s home on his route and held her at gunpoint. On December 22, 2021 a FedEx Ground driver in North Carolina was charged with breaking into 11 homes along his FedEx delivery route: stolen jewelry and guns were located in the driver’s FedEx Ground vehicle.”
These cases, taken together, are being used by Athena Strand’s family to support the claim that FedEx has been negligently hiring drivers—and that negligence has not just led to Athena Strand’s death—but to the injury and death of many others.
Hire a Personal Injury Attorney in Atlanta for FedEx Accidents and Wrongful Deaths
If your loved one has been injured or killed in a FedEx Truck Accident—or is a victim of a violent crime from an employee—it is crucial to hire a Personal Injury attorney immediately. The McArthur Law Firm can provide the legal assistance you need to ensure your case is in the right hands, and you will be getting the best representation that you deserve.
McArthur Law Firm serves the cities of Atlanta in Fulton County, Macon in Bibb County, Kathleen in Houston County, Peachtree Corners and Lawrenceville in Gwinnett County, Marietta and Smyrna in Cobb County, Stonecrest, Brookhaven, and Dunwoody in DeKalb County, Albany in Dougherty County, Columbus in Muscogee County, and throughout the surrounding areas of the state of Georgia.
- Atlanta Office: 404-565-1621
- Macon Office: 478-238-6600
- Warner Robins: 478-551-9901
