Mo-Vac Service Company, Inc. v. Primitivo Escobedo, Individually, San Juanita Escobedo, Individually, and Martha Escobedo, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Fabian Escobedo, 603 S.W.3d 119

Fabian Escobedo, a 12‑year Mo‑Vac tanker driver, died in a single‑vehicle rollover; his estate sued for pre‑death pain and suffering.
Mo‑Vac was a workers’‑compensation subscriber; the Act makes workers’ compensation the exclusive remedy absent an employer’s intentional act.
Escobedo’s logs show extreme hours in the eight days before the crash (137 hours total); plaintiff alleges fatigue from overwork caused the accident.
Terminal manager Urbano Garza’s affidavit described company pressure to run drivers long hours, falsify logs, and management statements minimizing crash risk.
Trial court granted Mo‑Vac’s no‑evidence summary judgment; the court of appeals reversed; the Supreme Court granted review and reversed the court of appeals, rendering judgment for Mo‑Vac.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Mo‑Vac’s conduct falls within the Act’s intentional‑injury exception by showing the employer believed Escobedo’s accident was "substantially certain" to occur	Escobedo was forced to work illegal, grueling hours and management knowingly encouraged falsified logs; Garza’s affidavit shows Mo‑Vac intended the risky system and thus believed injury/death was substantially certain	Generalized proof that company knowingly increased risk or expected some future injury among drivers is insufficient; plaintiff must show Mo‑Vac subjectively believed a particular injury to a particular employee was substantially certain	Evidence did not show Mo‑Vac believed Escobedo’s specific crash was substantially certain; intentional‑injury exception not met; exclusive remedy bars the claim
Whether evidence of pervasive dangerous conditions, falsified records, and management indifference can substitute for the required specificity (particular victim, particular outcome)	Systemic wrongdoing and repeated overwork demonstrate substantial certainty of a fatal crash to drivers like Escobedo	The substantial‑certainty test requires more specific evidence tying employer belief to a particular injury/employee; systemic risk is not enough	Systemic danger and indifference may show egregious conduct but do not satisfy the required subjective, particularized belief; courts must preserve workers’ compensation bargain

Middleton v. Texas Power & Light Co., 185 S.W. 556 (Tex. 1916) (constitutional open‑courts exception recognized for intentional employer injuries)
Reed Tool Co. v. Copelin, 689 S.W.2d 404 (Tex. 1985) (adopts Restatement substantial‑certainty test; employer liable only if it believed injury was substantially certain to occur to a particular employee)
Rodriguez v. Naylor Indus., Inc., 763 S.W.2d 411 (Tex. 1989) (example where employer’s orders regarding a specific truck and driver created fact issue on substantial certainty)
Crosstex N. Tex. Pipeline, L.P. v. Gardiner, 505 S.W.3d 580 (Tex. 2016) (intent measured subjectively; requiring specific causation for intentional torts)
Medina v. Herrera, 927 S.W.2d 597 (Tex. 1996) (confirms modern Act embodies Middleton rule)