Arvizu v. Estate of Puckett
364 S.W.3d 273
Tex.2012Background
- Arvizu and her son were injured when Cantu’s pickup collided with their car; Cantu was driving for Puckett Auto Sales but employed by Montgomery County Auto Auction (MCAA) and vehicle owned by Puckett.
- Jury found Cantu negligent and that MCAA was his employer, but that Cantu drove for Puckett’s benefit and was subject to Puckett’s control over the mission’s details.
- Jury further found MCAA was transporting the vehicle for Puckett’s benefit and controlled as to the mission’s details, creating a potential principal–agent scenario.
- Trial court entered a joint, several judgment against Cantu, MCAA, and Puckett, overruling Puckett’s objections.
- Court of Appeals reversed the judgment, concluding the findings on control were fatally conflicting and could not be reconciled; the court remanded for new trial.
- This Court reverses the court of appeals, rejects a fatal-conflict holding, and reinstates the trial court’s judgment, finding proper vicarious liability through principal–agent and subagency theories.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the jury findings on control were fatally conflicting | Arvizu argues conflicting control findings should yield a new trial | Puckett argues conflict negates liability and requires reversal | Not fatal; findings can be reconciled under Little Rock test |
| Whether nonemployee mission liability applies to establish Puckett’s liability | Arvizu contends Puckett’s control over the mission makes it liable | Puckett contends it had right to control and obligation to benefit, creating liability | Yes; nonemployee mission liability established via control and benefit |
| Whether Puckett is vicariously liable through subagency due to Cantu’s relationship with MCAA | Arvizu relies on subagency theory to hold Puckett liable | Puckett disputes scope of subagency liability | Yes; combined findings show Puckett liable under subagency theory, sustaining judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Bender v. S. Pac. Transp. Co., 600 S.W.2d 257 (Tex. 1980) (duty to harmonize jury findings; nonfatal conflict if reconcilable)
- Producers Chem. Co. v. McKay, 366 S.W.2d 220 (Tex. 1963) (courts must uphold jury findings if reconcilable)
- Bay Petroleum Corp. v. Crumpler, 372 S.W.2d 318 (Tex. 1963) (conflict assessment; test for fatal conflict)
- Little Rock Furniture Mfg. Co. v. Dunn, 222 S.W.2d 985 (Tex. 1949) (Little Rock test for fatal conflict in judgments)
- Wolff v. St. Joseph Hosp., 94 S.W.3d 513 (Tex. 2002) (nonemployee mission liability elements: benefit and control)
- Duff v. Spearman, 322 S.W.3d 869 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2010) (treatment of control in nonemployee mission liability)
- Omega Contracting, Inc. v. Torres, 191 S.W.3d 828 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2006) (threshold issue: control over agent’s means and details)
- Royal Mortg. Corp. v. Montague, 41 S.W.3d 721 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2001) (subagency principles in agency relationship)
- Bradford v. Arhelger, 340 S.W.2d 772 (Tex. 1960) (Little Rock test not universal across conflicts)