Laura Leticia Zepeda Vasquez, Individually and on Behalf of the Estate of Jose Abraham Vasquez,Jr. v. Legend Natural Gas III, LP Legend Natural Gas, LLC Lewis Energy Group, LP And Lewis Petro Properties, Inc, 04-14-00899-CV

Single-vehicle accident: decedent veered off a public rural road while following a Lewis Energy truck and was killed; plaintiff (Leticia Zepeda Vasquez) sued multiple private defendants alleging they created a dangerous road condition by their repeated use of the road.
Plaintiff sought recovery on theories that defendants had a duty to repair the public roadway or warn other motorists of its allegedly dilapidated, dusty condition.
Defendants moved to dismiss under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 91a, arguing no duty exists as a matter of law; the trial court granted the motions and entered dismissal (and severed remaining claims to make dismissal final).
On appeal, defendants (Lewis Energy parties here) contend roadway control and maintenance are governmental functions vested in the State/counties, not private users, and therefore private parties have no duty to maintain or warn about public road conditions.
Defendants also argue any duty-to-warn would be unworkable (statutory restrictions on placing signs in rights-of-way, open-and-obvious dangers, and the State’s comprehensive regulatory scheme governing roads and vehicle use).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a private user of a public road owes a duty to maintain the public roadway	Private use (repeated/damaging) of the road created a duty to repair or maintain	Control/maintenance of public roads is exclusively a governmental function; private users have no duty	Court affirmed dismissal: no duty as a matter of law
Whether a private user owes a duty to warn other motorists about road wear/dust conditions	Defendants should have warned motorists of hazardous conditions allegedly caused by their use	No duty to warn of conditions on public roads; dangers are open and obvious; regulatory scheme governs signage/warnings	Court affirmed dismissal: no duty to warn
Whether creation of a new common-law duty is warranted	Plaintiff seeks recognition of new duty based on alleged creation of hazardous condition by repeated use	Creation of such duty is contrary to Texas law, unworkable, and precluded where statute/regulation covers the field	Court declined to create new duty and dismissed claims
Whether alleged roadway wear proximately caused the accident such that defendants can be liable	Plaintiff attributes accident to dust/road condition allegedly resulting from defendants' use	Mere contribution to wear/tear (absent other actionable conduct) does not establish proximate cause; decedent’s conduct may be intervening	Court treated proximate-cause link as legally insufficient to defeat Rule 91a dismissal

City of San Antonio v. City of Boerne, 111 S.W.3d 22 (Tex. 2003) (legislature/delegated authorities bear responsibility to lay out, repair, and maintain county roads)
County of Cameron v. Brown, 80 S.W.3d 549 (Tex. 2002) (control/maintenance of public property supports governmental duty to make premises safe)
Buchanan v. Rose, 159 S.W.2d 390 (Tex. 1942) (private travelers are not required to warn of defects naturally resulting from normal, legitimate use of highways)
New Way Lumber Co. v. Smith, 96 S.W.2d 282 (Tex. 1936) (public roads are public property under state control)
Doe v. Boys Club of Greater Dallas, Inc., 907 S.W.2d 472 (Tex. 1995) (mere creation of condition making injury possible is insufficient to establish actionable breach)
Halepeska v. Callihan Interests, Inc., 371 S.W.2d 368 (Tex. 1963) (no duty to warn for dangers that are open and obvious)
Kroger Co. v. Elwood, 197 S.W.3d 793 (Tex. 2006) (no duty to warn of hazards commonly known or appreciated)
Shell Oil Co. v. Slade, 133 F.2d 518 (5th Cir. 1943) (driver entering obscuring conditions assumes responsibility for exercising due care)