Endeavor Energy Resources, L.P. v. Evelyn Cuevas, Individually and as Next Friend of C.C. and E.C., Minor Children, and on Behalf of the Estate of Angel Cuevas, Jr. Melanie Molina, as Next Friend of B.C., a Minor New Hampshire Insurance Co. And Erika Messer, as Next Friend of K.C., a Minor, 593 S.W.3d 307

Background

Endeavor Energy (owner) hired Big Dog Drilling (contractor) to drill on Endeavor’s mineral lease; Big Dog employee Angel Cuevas Jr. died when a catline/pipe struck his head.
Cuevas’s survivors sued Endeavor alleging ordinary negligence and premises-liability; Endeavor moved for summary judgment under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code chap. 95 (owner-liability limits).
Cuevas amended to add negligent-hiring, retention, and supervision claims against Endeavor; Endeavor did not amend its summary-judgment motion to address the new negligent-hiring claim.
Trial court granted summary judgment for Endeavor on all claims; the court of appeals reversed as to negligent hiring, holding chap. 95 did not apply because the hiring occurred before the injury and was not a contemporaneous on-premises act.
The Texas Supreme Court granted review to decide whether chap. 95 applies to a negligent-hiring claim and whether the trial court’s summary judgment dismissal of that claim was harmless.
The Supreme Court held chap. 95 applies to negligent-hiring claims that depend in part on the contractor’s contemporaneous use of an improvement, and because Endeavor argued lack of actual knowledge (a bar under chap. 95) the summary-judgment ruling as to negligent hiring was correct and harmless.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code ch. 95 apply to a negligent-hiring claim by a contractor’s employee?	Cuevas: No—negligent hiring occurred before the injury and is not a contemporaneous, on-premises act, so chap. 95’s heightened actual-knowledge standard doesn’t apply.	Endeavor: Yes—chap. 95 applies when the claim arises from the condition or use of an improvement and the employee’s injury resulted from the contractor’s contemporaneous use of the improvement.	Held: chap. 95 applies because negligent-hiring claims require proof of two negligent acts and arise from the contractor’s contemporaneous use of an improvement.
Does chap. 95’s actual-knowledge requirement effectively bar negligent-hiring claims because an owner could not have actual knowledge at the time of hiring?	Cuevas: chap. 95 would always bar negligent-hiring claims since hiring happens long before injury.	Endeavor: The statute requires actual knowledge of the danger that causes the injury at the time the owner exercised or retained control over the work; actual knowledge need not exist at time of hiring.	Held: Not necessarily barred—plaintiff may recover if owner retained control over the work and had actual knowledge of the danger that caused the injury.
Was the trial court’s summary judgment on negligent hiring erroneous because Endeavor didn’t amend its motion to address that claim?	Cuevas: Yes—the grounds asserted didn’t explicitly address negligent hiring, so dismissal was improper.	Endeavor: The chap. 95 ground it asserted (lack of actual knowledge) applies to negligent hiring as a matter of law.	Held: Any error was harmless because Endeavor’s chap. 95 ground bars negligent-hiring as a matter of law (no actual-knowledge proof).

Key Cases Cited

Ineos USA, LLC v. Elmgren, 505 S.W.3d 555 (Tex. 2016) (distinguishes actual-knowledge vs. constructive-knowledge standards under chap. 95)
Abutahoun v. Dow Chem. Co., 463 S.W.3d 42 (Tex. 2015) (interprets "arises from," "condition," and "use" in chap. 95 and addresses contemporaneous negligent activity)
Del Lago Partners, Inc. v. Smith, 307 S.W.3d 762 (Tex. 2010) (discusses malfeasance/contemporaneous conduct theories)
Waffle House, Inc. v. Williams, 313 S.W.3d 796 (Tex. 2010) (noting court has not definitively defined negligent-hiring elements)
Wansey v. Hole, 379 S.W.3d 246 (Tex. 2012) (compares negligent hiring to negligent entrustment)
4Front Engineered Sols., Inc. v. Rosales, 505 S.W.3d 905 (Tex. 2016) (explains negligent-entrustment requires two negligent acts)
TXI Transp. Co. v. Hughes, 306 S.W.3d 230 (Tex. 2010) (requires proximate causation linking entrustment risk to plaintiff’s injuries)
Fifth Club, Inc. v. Ramirez, 196 S.W.3d 788 (Tex. 2006) (discusses two-party negligence causation in entrustment/hiring contexts)
G & H Towing Co. v. Magee, 347 S.W.3d 293 (Tex. 2011) (harmless-error rule for summary judgment on unpresented causes of action)