Atlantic Industrial, Inc. A/K/A Atlantic Scaffolding Company and Faustino Murillo v. Eugene Blair, III, 457 S.W.3d 511

Atlantic Industrial and Murillo appeal a judgment arising from a 2005 El Paso automobile crash caused by Murillo, who was intoxicated and driving at high speed.
Blair sued Murillo and Atlantic, alleging Murillo was on call and within the course and scope of his employment, or that Atlantic negligently entrusted Murillo a vehicle.
Jury found Murillo within the course and scope of employment and Atlantic negligent entrustment; apportioned 60% fault to Atlantic and 40% to Murillo; total damages $604,532.80.
Trial court entered judgment against Atlantic and Murillo jointly and severally, disregarding the jury’s apportionment.
Atlantic challenges the sufficiency of the evidence for respondeat superior and negligent entrustment, and Blair cross-appeals on a direct-liability question; the court ultimately reverses and renders take-nothing against Blair on Atlantic.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was Murillo within the course and scope of employment?	Blair argues Murillo acted in the scope of employment.	Atlantic contends Murillo was not acting within scope.	No: legally insufficient evidence supports scope
Did Atlantic negligently entrust Murillo with a vehicle?	Blair asserts negligent entrustment given Murillo's history and Atlantic’s control rights.	Atlantic contends there was no right of control and ownership was with Murillo.	No: no right of control; negligent entrustment not proven
Should the apportionment of fault be disregarded in light of reversal on the core theories?	Blair requests joint and several liability based on fault apportionment.	Atlantic argues apportionment remains relevant if theories survive.	Unnecessary to decide; apportionment immaterial after reversal
Does Otis exception create a duty to third parties for off-site intoxication?	Blair contends a direct-duty exception applies due to Atlantic's knowledge and control.	Atlantic contends no such duty arises without affirmative control after incapacity.	No: Otis exception not triggered; no direct-duty found

City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (standard for legal-sufficiency review in JNOV/summary judgments)
Otis Engineering Corp. v. Clark, 668 S.W.2d 307 (Tex. 1983) (affirmative control creates duty to third parties when employee incapacitated)
Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. v. Mayes, 236 S.W.3d 754 (Tex. 2007) (negligent entrustment elements framework)
Williams v. Chaney, 620 S.W.2d 809 (Tex. Civ. App.—El Paso 1981) (vehicle-control/right-to-control analysis for entrustment)
De Blanc v. Jensen, 59 S.W.3d 373 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001) (non-owner liability requires right to control vehicle)
J. & C. Drilling Co. v. Salaiz, 866 S.W.2d 632 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1993) (general standard for res ipsa and scope considerations)
Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Lee, 847 S.W.2d 354 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1993) (special mission exception to course-and-scope analysis)