Ramiro Najera v. Recana Solutions, LLC
14-14-00332-CV
| Tex. App. | Aug 20, 2015Background
- Najera worked for Recana Solutions as crew lead on a fumigation/manual-labor team placed at American Rice’s mill; Prodoehl was a Recana coworker who reported to Najera.
- On June 4, 2012, Prodoehl assaulted Najera with a hard hat near the end of their shift, causing dental and shoulder injuries; Recana immediately terminated Prodoehl.
- Prodoehl’s Recana application denied felony convictions; his record showed prior misdemeanors (possession, DWI, assault); Recana did not run a criminal-background check.
- Najera sued Recana (after settling with American Rice) for respondeat superior, negligent hiring/retention/undertaking, negligent supervision/training, and gross negligence.
- Recana moved for summary judgment (no-evidence and traditional); trial court struck Najera’s rebuttal expert affidavit and granted summary judgment without specifying grounds.
- The court of appeals affirmed, holding (1) no duty to perform background checks for this unskilled placement, (2) no evidence of breach or causation for supervision/training claims, and (3) Najera failed to raise issues on respondeat superior and negligent-undertaking reliance element.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty to perform criminal background check / negligent hiring & retention | Najera: Recana owed a duty to vet workers (service agreement and port security context) and breached by not conducting background checks | Recana: No general duty to run criminal checks for unskilled labor placement; service agreement did not create actionable duty to Najera | Held: No general duty; placement was not foreseeably hazardous and negligent-hiring claim fails |
| Negligent undertaking (agreement to screen) | Najera: Service agreement required Recana to perform background/drug screening for American Rice | Recana: Even if undertaking existed, Najera cannot show reliance or that Recana’s performance increased his risk | Held: No-evidence summary judgment affirmed because Najera produced no evidence of reliance or increased risk |
| Negligent supervision and training | Najera: Recana failed to provide on-site manager/supervision as required and Ayala (supervisor) was not present | Recana: No evidence it breached supervision/training or that any breach proximately caused injury | Held: Summary judgment affirmed—Najera offered no evidence what additional supervision/training would have prevented the assault |
| Respondeat superior / scope of employment | Najera: (implied) employer liable for employee’s acts on site | Recana: No evidence assault occurred in course and scope of employment; it was an independent, intentional criminal act | Held: No-evidence summary judgment affirmed—Najera failed to point to evidence raising a fact issue on course-and-scope element |
Key Cases Cited
- Wise v. Complete Staffing Servs., Inc., 56 S.W.3d 900 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2001) (refusing to impose duty to perform criminal-history checks where criminal act was not job-related)
- Guidry v. Nat’l Freight, Inc., 944 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. App.—Austin 1997) (job-unrelated bad acts are unforeseeable for negligent-hiring duty)
- Estate of Arrington v. Fields, 578 S.W.2d 173 (Tex. Civ. App.—Tyler 1979) (distinguished—imposing liability where employee performed hazardous, job-related duties)
- Torrington Co. v. Stutzman, 46 S.W.3d 829 (Tex. 2000) (elements of negligent undertaking)
- Nall v. Plunkett, 404 S.W.3d 552 (Tex. 2013) (discussing negligent-undertaking framework)