Jeremy Oney and Horizon Cable Service, Inc. v. William Crist and Heather Crist, 517 S.W.3d 882

Background

A Horizon Cable Service spooling truck driven by Jeremy Oney rear-ended or clipped an Escalade driven by William “Chip” Crist and occupied by Heather Crist after a pickup driven by Jarron Marshall lost control in wet conditions; the Crists sued Oney and Horizon.
Jury found Oney and Horizon negligent and grossly negligent, awarded substantial past and future medical and non‑economic damages to both Crists, plus $300,000 exemplary damages each.
Oney admitted cruise control was set at 70 mph on a wet road; he testified he braked, locked axles, veered left, and clipped the Escalade to avoid a head‑on collision.
Evidence conflicted over Marshall’s role: testimony suggested Marshall may have ‘‘gunned it’’ or experienced a blowout, but trooper and other witnesses indicated Marshall lost control driving too fast for wet conditions.
Horizon disputed negligent entrustment, gross negligence (exemplary damages), and sufficiency of certain expert opinions and future medical awards; the court of appeals affirmed liability for negligence but reversed negligent entrustment, gross negligence, and exemplary damages.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Marshall was negligent / primary cause	Marshall’s loss of control started the chain; his speeding/vehicle modifications caused the crash.	Oney drove too fast/too close in wet conditions and thus was the proximate cause.	Jury reasonably found Oney (not Marshall) negligent; evidence legally and factually sufficient to support that result.
Negligent entrustment of vehicle to Oney	Horizon entrusted a heavy spooling truck to an inexperienced/possibly fatigued driver and should have known he was incompetent/reckless.	Oney was licensed, had prior experience, no proven pattern of recklessness or known impairment; Horizon lacked actual knowledge of incompetence or impairment.	Reversed: insufficient evidence that Oney was incompetent/reckless or that Horizon knew/should have known; negligent entrustment not proven.
Gross negligence / exemplary damages	Horizon (and Oney) acted with conscious indifference by allowing/committing high‑risk conduct (speeding/cruise control in wet conditions).	Plaintiff failed to prove clear and convincing evidence of subjective awareness and conscious indifference required for gross negligence.	Reversed and rendered: evidence not clear and convincing; exemplary damages and gross‑negligence claims vacated.
Admissibility & sufficiency of expert testimony on future treatments (neurotomies, stem cells)	Dr. Calodney’s opinions support reasonable necessity of repeat neurotomies and stem‑cell injections for future care; opinions are reliable and supported by studies/treatment experience.	Horizon argued the treatments (especially stem cells) are experimental/unreliable and expert testimony was conclusory.	Overruled: trial court did not abuse discretion; Dr. Calodney’s testimony found sufficiently reliable and supported; jury could award future medical damages even above the expert’s estimate.

Key Cases Cited

City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (legal and factual sufficiency standards for civil verdicts)
Lee Lewis Constr. Inc. v. Harrison, 70 S.W.3d 778 (Tex. 2001) (elements and proximate‑cause principles for negligence)
U‑Haul Int’l, Inc. v. Waldrip, 380 S.W.3d 118 (Tex. 2012) (clear‑and‑convincing standard and definition of gross negligence)
E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Robinson, 923 S.W.2d 549 (Tex. 1995) (Daubert‑type reliability factors for expert testimony)
TXI Transp. Co. v. Hughes, 306 S.W.3d 230 (Tex. 2010) (causation requirement for negligent entrustment)
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Mayes, 236 S.W.3d 754 (Tex. 2007) (prior isolated driving violations insufficient to prove incompetence)
4Front Engineered Sols., Inc. v. Rosales, 505 S.W.3d 905 (Tex. 2016) (lack of formal training does not automatically prove incompetence)