In re Molina, 575 S.W.3d 76

Background

Multi-vehicle collision on I-45: officer Amos had stopped Shabi on left shoulder and directed him to move right; Shabi “darted” across three lanes to the right shoulder.
Molina (van) slowed to avoid the situation; Villalta (semi) rear-ended Molina, and Villalta’s truck then struck Ware’s (plaintiff) truck. Ware sued Molina, Villalta, and Villalta’s employer.
Defendants designated Shabi as a responsible third party (RTP). Ware moved to strike the designation, arguing no evidence Shabi was responsible; the trial court granted the motion.
Molina petitioned for mandamus, arguing the trial court abused its discretion because he produced more-than-scintilla evidence that Shabi was negligent and proximately caused Ware’s injuries.
The majority held Officer Amos’s eyewitness testimony supplied sufficient evidence on breach and proximate cause to create a fact issue; mandamus relief granted to vacate the strike order.
A dissent argued Amos’s testimony was speculative as to causation, Molina’s own testimony undercut causation, and close factual calls belong to the trial court in an original mandamus posture.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court abused discretion by striking RTP designation for Shabi	Ware: defendants produced no evidence that Shabi was responsible for Ware’s injuries	Molina: Officer Amos’s testimony shows Shabi negligently darted across lanes and that caused Molina to slow, leading to the collision	Court: Trial court abused discretion; Amos’s testimony is more than a scintilla on breach and proximate cause, so designation should stand
Sufficiency of evidence for breach of duty by Shabi	Ware: no probative evidence of negligent driving causing injury	Molina: Amos testified Shabi made unsafe lane changes, crossed three lanes without signaling	Court: A jury could find Shabi’s maneuver negligent based on Amos’s eyewitness account
Sufficiency of evidence for proximate cause linking Shabi to Ware’s injuries	Ware: Amos’s statements are speculative; later crash report omits Shabi; Molina’s testimony shows he avoided Shabi	Molina: Amos testified Shabi caused Molina to slow and that led to Villalta’s rear-end collisions	Court: Amos’s eyewitness opinion provides some evidence that Shabi’s conduct was a substantial factor and foreseeable cause; disputes for jury
Appropriate review standard on mandamus of motion to strike	Ware: trial court’s factual assessments control; close calls for trial court	Molina: legal ruling reviewed de novo on whether evidence is more than a scintilla	Court: Although mandamus is extraordinary, the question of law (sufficiency = more than a scintilla) is reviewed de novo; appellate remedy inadequate, so mandamus warranted

Key Cases Cited

In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124 (Tex. 2004) (mandamus standard and adequacy of appellate remedy)
In re Coppola, 535 S.W.3d 506 (Tex. 2017) (erroneous RTP rulings render appellate remedy inadequate)
In re Labatt Food Serv., L.P., 279 S.W.3d 640 (Tex. 2009) (defer to trial court's factual findings but review legal rulings de novo)
Rogers v. Zanetti, 518 S.W.3d 394 (Tex. 2017) (substantial-factor test for proximate cause)
Union Pump Co. v. Allbritton, 898 S.W.2d 773 (Tex. 1995) (distinguishing negligence that merely furnishes a condition from proximate cause)
Ford Motor Co. v. Ledesma, 242 S.W.3d 32 (Tex. 2007) (clarifying causation doctrines)
Brown v. Edwards Transfer Co., Inc., 764 S.W.2d 220 (Tex. 1988) (foreseeability and proximate cause principles)
W. Invs., Inc. v. Urena, 162 S.W.3d 547 (Tex. 2005) (elements of negligence)
Ham v. Equity Residential Prop. Mgmt. Servs., Corp., 315 S.W.3d 627 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2010) (characterizing motion-to-strike RTP as legal question)
Bell v. Campbell, 434 S.W.2d 117 (Tex. 1968) (examples where prior negligence merely created condition, not cause)