Albert Ray Williams v. Great Western Distributing Company of Amarillo D/B/A Bill Reed Distributing Company
12-16-00095-CV
| Tex. App. | Dec 16, 2016Background
- Croxton, a Great Western delivery driver, used a company vehicle for deliveries; weekdays paid hourly, weekends paid a flat rate with schedule and GPS tracking.
- On a weekend (flat-rate day), Croxton had not finished all deliveries and was driving home for lunch when he collided with Williams in Abilene.
- Williams sued Croxton and Great Western, alleging Great Western was directly negligent/grossly negligent and vicariously liable under respondeat superior.
- Great Western moved for traditional and no-evidence summary judgment on gross negligence and respondeat superior; the trial court granted summary judgment on gross negligence and, by oral/letter ruling, on respondeat superior; later granted special exceptions and struck claims; Williams obtained severance and appealed.
- The Court of Appeals treated the summary judgment on respondeat superior as final (it merged with the later order striking claims) and reviewed the no-evidence ground for respondeat superior.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court’s (oral/letter) summary-judgment ruling on respondeat superior was properly before the court | Williams: the letter ruling merged with the subsequent order striking claims, so it is appealable | Great Western: merger occurred (agreeing the ruling was appealable) | Held: Merger occurred; summary-judgment ruling is properly before the court (issue sustained) |
| Whether Great Western is vicariously liable under respondeat superior for Croxton’s negligence | Williams: Croxton was working (had undelivered stops), used employer vehicle, GPS monitoring, and employer actions after the crash indicate employment nexus | Great Western: Croxton testified he was on a personal errand (driving home for lunch); employer not liable when employee deviates for personal purposes | Held: No-evidence summary judgment for Great Western affirmed; Croxton was on a personal errand (lunch) and plaintiff produced no evidence creating a fact issue |
| Whether the trial court erred by granting special exceptions and striking claims if the letter ruling was not a proper summary-judgment order | Williams: trial court abused discretion if letter ruling not proper | Great Western: merger and finality moot the argument | Held: Court need not address because merger/sustain of first issue made this unnecessary |
Key Cases Cited
- S & A Rest. Corp. v. Leal, 892 S.W.2d 852 (Tex. 1995) (judgment is rendered when announced in open court or by written memorandum filed with the clerk)
- Robertson Tank Lines, Inc. v. Van Cleave, 468 S.W.2d 354 (Tex. 1971) (presumption that employee driving employer vehicle was acting within scope of employment can be rebutted by evidence of personal errand)
- Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Mayes, 236 S.W.3d 754 (Tex. 2007) (summary judgment proper where uncontroverted testimony shows driver was on a personal errand at time of accident)
- Webb v. Jorns, 488 S.W.2d 407 (Tex. 1972) (interlocutory judgment becomes final when it disposes of all claims against a party)
- Ford Motor Co. v. Ridgway, 135 S.W.3d 598 (Tex. 2004) (no-evidence summary judgment shifts burden to nonmovant to produce more than a scintilla of evidence)