Dennis Rayner and Joe Tex Xpress, Inc. v. Krista Dillon, 06-15-00009-CV

Background

On July 23, 2010 a commercial truck driven by Dennis Rayner changed from the left to the right lane on I-30 and struck Krista Dillon’s car; Rayner did not see Dillon before the lane change. Rayner was cited for an unsafe lane change; the officer did not identify fatigue as a factor. Rayner’s post‑accident drug/alcohol screen was negative.
Rayner had over 30 years’ commercial driving experience and held a valid CDL and DOT medical card; he had been employed by Joe Tex Xpress, Inc. since 2007 and left the company in 2011.
Dillon sued Rayner (negligence; gross negligence) and Joe Tex (negligent entrustment; gross negligence). At trial Rayner and Joe Tex accepted responsibility for the accident; a jury awarded substantial actual damages and assessed exemplary damages against both defendants.
The jury found both Rayner and Joe Tex grossly negligent; exemplary damages were later reduced by statutory caps. Defendants appealed, arguing the gross‑negligence findings are legally and factually insufficient under the clear‑and‑convincing evidentiary standard.
Plaintiff’s trial theory relied heavily on alleged log‑book errors to infer Rayner violated hours‑of‑service rules and was fatigued; defendants emphasize undisputed evidence showing Rayner had rested, had driven only 2–3 hours that day, and that the officer and witnesses observed no signs of fatigue.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence is legally sufficient to prove Rayner’s conduct was grossly negligent	Dillon contends aggravating circumstances (e.g., log errors implying fatigue) and the lane change support gross negligence	Rayner argues facts show at most simple negligence: he failed to see Dillon in his blind spot; no evidence of extreme risk or subjective awareness	Court should reverse gross‑negligence finding as legally insufficient (defendants preserve that argument on appeal)
Whether evidence is legally sufficient to prove Joe Tex grossly negligent by entrusting vehicle to Rayner	Dillon argues Joe Tex negligently entrusted a truck to a driver who regularly drove fatigued and made log falsifications	Joe Tex points to Rayner’s decades of experience, successful hiring checks, few incidents, and no evidence the company knew of any extreme risk	Court should reverse gross‑negligence finding against employer as legally insufficient (no evidence of conscious indifference)
Whether extraneous “bad acts” (prior accidents, log errors, regulatory violations) can support exemplary damages where they lack nexus to the harm	Dillon uses prior acts and log problems to show pattern of reckless/fatigued driving supporting exemplary damages	Defendants argue conduct must have causal nexus to the plaintiff’s injuries; unrelated bad acts cannot support exemplary damages	Court should require nexus; conduct not causally connected to the Sulphur Springs collision cannot support gross‑negligence award
Whether log‑book errors establish fatigue and thus gross negligence under clear‑and‑convincing standard	Dillon argues log errors permit inference Rayner falsified logs to hide hours‑of‑service violations and was fatigued when the crash occurred	Defendants argue (1) regulatory noncompliance is not per se gross negligence; (2) log errors are equivocal (clerical mistakes vs. intentional falsification) and require stacked inferences to reach fatigue; (3) record contains affirmative evidence negating fatigue	Court should hold log discrepancies alone do not satisfy clear‑and‑convincing proof of fatigue or gross negligence; undisputed evidence showing lack of fatigue must be considered

Key Cases Cited

U-Haul Int'l, Inc. v. Waldrip, 380 S.W.3d 118 (Tex. 2012) (defines objective and subjective elements of gross negligence and requires clear‑and‑convincing proof)
Boerjan v. Rodriguez, 436 S.W.3d 307 (Tex. 2014) (clarifies extreme‑risk and subjective‑awareness requirements for gross negligence)
Diamond Shamrock Refining Co. v. Hall, 168 S.W.3d 164 (Tex. 2005) (explains clear‑and‑convincing standard and appellate review for exemplary damages)
City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (standard for appellate legal‑sufficiency review and consideration of all evidence)
Safeshred, Inc. v. Martinez, 365 S.W.3d 655 (Tex. 2012) (requires nexus between defendant’s outrageous conduct and plaintiff’s specific harm for exemplary damages)
N. Am. Van Lines, Inc. v. Emmons, 50 S.W.3d 103 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2001) (illustrative treatment that ordinary negligent driving, without aggravating circumstances, does not satisfy gross‑negligence objective element)
USA Truck, Inc. v. West, 189 S.W.3d 904 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2006) (example of where aggravating circumstances supported gross‑negligence finding in truck‑driving context)