Bryan Black v. Smith Protective Services, Inc., 01-14-00969-CV

Background

Plaintiff Bryan Black lived in a condominium complex where Smith Protective Services (Smith) employed security guard Muhammad Zaffar.
After Zaffar denied entry to a guest, Black drove to the gate, exited his car, and loudly berated and cursed at Zaffar (and a resident).
After his shift, Zaffar reported the incident to police and an ADA obtained an arrest warrant; Black was arrested and jailed over a weekend and later released on bail.
Black sued the condominium owners/management, Zaffar, and Smith; the condominium defendants settled and Smith moved for no‑evidence and traditional summary judgment.
The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Smith (dismissing Black’s claims against Smith). A later bench judgment was entered for Black against Zaffar after Zaffar did not appear at trial.
On appeal Smith argues it cannot be liable for Zaffar’s actions because the criminal report and subsequent arrest were not within the scope of Zaffar’s employment, Smith owed no independent duty to Black, and Black produced no evidence of proximate cause linking Smith’s hiring/training to his damages.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Respondeat superior: Is Smith vicariously liable for Zaffar’s allegedly false police report?	Black contends Smith should be liable for harms flowing from Zaffar’s report leading to Black’s arrest.	Smith argues filing the criminal complaint occurred off duty and after work, not within the course and scope of employment; employer not liable for employee deviations.	Summary judgment for Smith affirmed: Zaffar’s report was outside scope of employment.
Negligent hiring/training/supervision: Did Smith owe and breach a duty to Black?	Black alleges Smith failed to follow hiring policies, train guards re: reporting, supervise/ warn residents about Zaffar, and retain him despite history.	Smith says Black produced no evidence Smith owed any duty to residents beyond its contract with the property or that any hiring/training breach occurred.	Summary judgment for Smith affirmed: no duty shown and no admissible evidence of actionable breach.
Proximate cause: Did any Smith wrongdoing proximately cause Black’s damages?	Black argues employment of Zaffar and insufficient oversight led to his arrest and damages.	Smith contends any alleged hiring/retention merely created a condition and the police investigation/bad faith arrest — not Smith’s conduct — caused the injury.	Summary judgment for Smith affirmed: plaintiff failed to prove causation; mere employment is insufficient.
Admissibility/weight of expert opinion	Black relies on an expert claiming application irregularities warranted deeper background checks.	Smith argues the expert’s opinions are conclusory and unsupported; courts require a factual basis for expert conclusions.	Court accepts that conclusory expert opinions without factual basis cannot defeat summary judgment.

Key Cases Cited

Minyard Food Stores, Inc. v. Goodman, 80 S.W.3d 573 (Tex. 2002) (scope of employment and employer liability principles).
Otis Eng’g Corp. v. Clark, 668 S.W.2d 307 (Tex. 1983) (no general duty to control another’s conduct).
Robertson Tank Lines, Inc. v. Van Cleave, 468 S.W.2d 354 (Tex. 1971) (employer liability limited to acts within general authority).
Baptist Mem’l Hosp. Sys. v. Sampson, 969 S.W.2d 945 (Tex. 1998) (respondeat superior framework).
Banzhaf v. ADT Sec. Systems Southwest, Inc., 28 S.W.3d 180 (Tex. App. — Eastland 2000) (security company duties tied to contractual scope).
CoTemp, Inc. v. Houston West Corp., 222 S.W.3d 487 (Tex. App. — Houston [14th Dist.] 2007) (proximate cause and foreseeability in employment contexts).
Wansey v. Hole, 379 S.W.3d 246 (Tex. 2012) (cause‑in‑fact standards).
Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc. v. Merrell, 313 S.W.3d 837 (Tex. 2010) (requirement that expert opinions be grounded in fact for summary judgment purposes).