It is clear in the case that the driver intentionally accelerated and hit the car in front of him causing physical harm to the driver of that car. It should be noted that the driver decided to drive recklessly, which resulted in the injury of a third party. Based on the intent and the results of the situation, the issue falls under vehicular assault. The driver of the delivery truck was agitated and tried to drive the other car off the road.
The conduct of the delivery truck driver was reckless because the individual did not consider the situation in the other car. It is possible that the car in front had developed mechanical failure or the driver had suffered a heart attack. However, if the car in front was deliberately blocking the car behind then the best course of action for the delivery truck would be to report that vehicle for obstruction but not ramming into it.
If the driver of the delivery truck was an employee, then the doctrine of Respondeat Superior would come into effect. This doctrine shifts responsibility from the employee to the employer as long as the employee committed the offense or accident while on official duty for the employer. The doctrine also covers negligent acts of employees. Although it was within the driver's scope of duties to drive the delivery truck, ramming the vehicle in front after losing their temper is not part of their duties. Thus, the doctrine might not apply.
In court, the actions of the delivery truck driver will be determined first, and the employer may be brought in through Respondeat Superior in the interest of justice for the claimant.