Camillo Martinez O/B/O Yolanda Martinez v. Nabeel "Bill" Arafat D/B/A Texas Car Stereo
01-15-00161-CV
Tex. App.Jul 29, 2015Background
- On July 9, 2011, Miguel Rodriguez was driving a car owned by Martina Ortiz Grifaldo when he collided with Yolanda Martinez, who later died; Camillo Martinez (on behalf of Yolanda) sued alleging negligent entrustment, vicarious liability (respondeat superior), negligence per se, and gross negligence against Texas Car Stereo (Arafat and U.S. Car Sale & Repair, LLC).
- Rodriguez was an off‑the‑clock general laborer at Texas Car Stereo; he testified he retrieved Grifaldo’s car from her residence the night before and was running a personal errand (to a junkyard) the morning of the crash.
- Texas Car Stereo employees testified Rodriguez was not authorized to drive customers’ vehicles, the shop never possessed or repaired the subject car, and Rodriguez did not bring the car to the shop before the accident.
- Defendants moved for traditional and no‑evidence summary judgment arguing they neither owned nor controlled the vehicle, did not entrust it to Rodriguez, he was not acting within the scope of employment, and there was no evidence of gross negligence.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants; the appeal challenges whether the record raised fact issues on ownership/control, entrustment, scope of employment, and gross negligence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership / right to control vehicle | Defendants had sufficient control/possession (vehicle brought for repair) to be liable as non‑owners | Defendants never possessed or controlled the car; no evidence it was left with or accepted by the shop | Summary judgment affirmed: no evidence of possession/control |
| Negligent entrustment | Defendants entrusted the car to Rodriguez (permitting use) | No entrustment: Rodriguez was not authorized to drive customer cars and was not given permission | Summary judgment affirmed: entrustment not proven |
| Scope of employment / respondeat superior | Rodriguez was acting for the employer (route/benefit arguments) | Rodriguez was off‑duty, running a personal errand; not authorized to drive customer vehicles; deviation suspends employment relationship | Summary judgment affirmed: Rodriguez not acting within scope of employment |
| Gross negligence | Defendants knew of Rodriguez’s risk and consciously disregarded it | No summary judgment evidence of extreme risk or actual subjective awareness by defendants | Summary judgment affirmed: no evidence of gross negligence |
Key Cases Cited
- King Ranch, Inc. v. Chapman, 118 S.W.3d 742 (Tex. 2003) (legal‑sufficiency standard for no‑evidence review and scope‑of‑employment principles)
- Merrell Dow Pharms. v. Havner, 953 S.W.2d 706 (Tex. 1997) (definition of "more than a scintilla" in no‑evidence context)
- Provident Life & Acc. Ins. Co. v. Knott, 128 S.W.3d 211 (Tex. 2003) (de novo review standard for traditional summary judgment)
- Anderson v. Snider, 808 S.W.2d 54 (Tex. 1991) (conclusory or speculative evidence insufficient to create fact issue)
- Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Mays, 236 S.W.2d 754 (Tex. 2007) (elements of negligent entrustment and owner/nonowner control principles)