4front Engineered Solutions, Inc. v. Carlos Rosales, Individually, and Rosa Mejia, as Next Friend of Carlos Rosales, Jr., 505 S.W.3d 905

4Front Engineered Solutions owns a Pharr, Texas warehouse; safety manager Ornelas arranged work on a lighted exterior sign with Reyes, who subcontracted with Rosales to assist.
Reyes requested using a scissors lift; Ornelas allowed use of 4Front’s stand-up forklift instead, and Reyes stated he could move it slowly.
On two days, Reyes operated the forklift with Rosales in a man basket; on the second morning, the forklift toppled when driven off the sidewalk edge, injuring Rosales.
Rosales sued 4Front and Reyes for negligence, negligence per se, gross negligence, and premises liability; the jury found 4Front negligent in entrustment and premises liability, allocating 75% to 4Front, 15% to Reyes, 10% to Rosales; Rosales’ damages were about $8 million, plus $5 million exemplary damages later reduced.
The court of appeals reversed the gross-negligence finding, struck exemplary damages, and affirmed the remainder; the Supreme Court granted review to reverse and render in favor of 4Front, remanding for further disposition of Rosales’s claims against Reyes.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Negligent entrustment elements required	Rosales argues 4Front should have known Reyes was incompetent or reckless.	4Front contends there is no evidence Reyes was incompetent or reckless or that 4Front knew or should have known.	No evidence supports negligent entrustment; Reyes was not shown incompetent or reckless.
Premises-liability viability for open/obvious condition	Rosales asserts a dangerous premises condition caused the injury.	4Front argues no dangerous premises condition and Chapter 95 may apply.	No evidence supports premises liability; any sidewalk risk was open and obvious.
Applicability of Chapter 95 and alternative theories	Rosales relies on Chapter 95 to address premises liability against the owner.	4Front argues Chapter 95 does apply or, if not, negligent-entrustment still lacks evidence.	Even if Chapter 95 does not apply, no evidence supports either negligent entrustment or premises liability.

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Mayes, 236 S.W.3d 754 (Tex. 2007) (requires proof that operator was incompetent or reckless; evidence of mere negligence is insufficient)
Williams v. Steve’s Indus., Inc., 699 S.W.2d 570 (Tex. 1985) (no liability for entrusting to unlicensed driver where driver not proven incompetent or reckless)
Mundy v. Pirie–Slaughter Motor Co., 206 S.W.2d 587 (Tex. 1947) (screening duty; lack of license evidence cannot, by itself, prove incompetence)
TXI Transp. Co. v. Hughes, 306 S.W.3d 230 (Tex. 2010) (proof of should-have-known through inquiries; risk revealed by inquiries must suffice)
Williams v. Steve’s Indus., Inc. (duplicate notation for context), 699 S.W.2d 570 (Tex. 1985) (see above)
Suarez v. City of Texas City, 465 S.W.3d 623 (Tex. 2015) (premises-condition open and obvious rule)