639 S.W.3d 772
Tex. App.2021Background
- In May 2017 Rebecca Blaser applied to drive for Lyft, submitted license/registration/insurance proof and authorized third‑party background checks; Lyft accepted her as an independent contractor under its Terms of Service.
- Blaser’s GEICO policy was effective when she applied but lapsed (payment not processed) before the August 30, 2017 ride from DFW in which she drove Molly Freyer.
- During the ride Blaser suffered a vasovagal syncope episode, lost control of the vehicle, and Freyer sustained severe, permanent injuries (including partial foot amputation).
- Freyer sued Blaser and Lyft; she settled with Blaser and pursued claims against Lyft including respondeat superior, negligent hiring/retention (of an independent contractor and employee), negligent entrustment, negligent training/supervision, and negligent undertaking (background screening).
- The trial court granted Lyft’s traditional and no‑evidence motions for summary judgment on all claims except initially negligent undertaking; on reconsideration the court granted judgment for Lyft on that claim too. The court of appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether TNC statute’s independent‑contractor provision applies when driver’s insurance lapsed at time of accident | Freyer: a driver without current insurance is not an "authorized to log in" driver under Tex. Occ. Code §2402.114, so respondeat superior is not displaced | Lyft: §2402.114’s independent‑contractor definition does not incorporate the pre‑log‑in verification duties in §2402.107; once Lyft authorized the driver, IC status applies and statutory purpose disfavors repeated re‑verification | Court: Statutory text and purpose disallow Freyer’s cross‑section reading; Lyft satisfied §2402.114 and summary judgment on respondeat superior affirmed |
| Whether plaintiff may maintain negligent hiring/retention claims against Lyft as to an independent contractor | Freyer: even if Blaser is an IC, Lyft negligently outsourced/failed to investigate and thus negligently hired/retained an unsafe driver | Lyft: statutory compliance and background checks (even outsourced) meet or exceed common‑law care; no evidence Blaser was incompetent or reckless | Court: No‑evidence for negligent hiring of an IC—Blaser’s driving record did not show incompetence or recent safety‑related offenses that would have put Lyft on notice; negligent retention of an IC was not pled/tried by consent; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether Freyer raised more than a scintilla on negligent undertaking (background screenings) | Freyer: Lyft voluntarily undertook background screening, performed it negligently (outsourced/inadequate) and rider relied on Lyft’s safety assurances | Lyft: it contracted with third parties to run checks, investigated rider complaints, and even if it undertook screening, Freyer showed no reliance and no evidence the screening increased risk | Court: Freyer’s evidence was conclusory or insufficient (no specific reliance, no showing screening increased risk); Lyft’s inquiries into two rider safety flags were reasonable—summary judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Baptist Mem’l Hosp. Sys. v. Sampson, 969 S.W.2d 945 (Tex. 1998) (respondeat superior and employer control rationale)
- Ford Motor Co. v. Ridgway, 135 S.W.3d 598 (Tex. 2004) (no‑evidence summary judgment standard)
- King Ranch, Inc. v. Chapman, 118 S.W.3d 742 (Tex. 2003) (viewing evidence in summary judgment posture)
- Prairie View A & M Univ. v. Chatha, 381 S.W.3d 500 (Tex. 2012) (plain‑meaning statutory construction principles)
- TGS‑NOPEC Geophysical Co. v. Combs, 340 S.W.3d 432 (Tex. 2011) (presumption that legislature chooses statutory language with care)
- Nall v. Plunkett, 404 S.W.3d 552 (Tex. 2013) (elements of negligent undertaking claim)
- Torrington Co. v. Stutzman, 46 S.W.3d 829 (Tex. 2000) (duty limited to voluntarily assumed undertaking)
- Houston Cab Co. v. Fields, 249 S.W.3d 741 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2008) (discussing insufficiency of insurance‑related offenses to prove driver incompetence)