Regina Kay Smith and Jeffrey Scott Grove, as Surviving Parents of Brittany Dawn Grove v. USI Industrial Services, Inc., 13-20-00004-CV

USI Industrial Services employed boilermakers Roberto Rodriguez and Alejandro Ayala and sent them to work at a Phillips 66 refinery in Borger, Texas.
On the morning of April 18, 2016, USI terminated Rodriguez and Ayala in a reduction-in-force; they clocked out around 8:20 a.m.
Later that day the men traveled toward the Rio Grande Valley; Rodriguez, driving Ayala’s truck, lost control in Coleman, Texas, and collided with Brittany Grove, killing Brittany and Rodriguez.
Brittany’s surviving parents (the Groves) sued USI asserting respondeat superior, non-employee mission liability, and negligence based on the men’s driving.
USI moved for traditional and no-evidence summary judgment, attaching an affidavit from supervisor Sherman Smith; the trial court granted summary judgment and the Groves appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Respondeat superior — was Rodriguez USI's employee at the time of the accident?	Rodriguez remained tied to USI by travel pay and work-related travel, raising fact issues about employment status.	Rodriguez was terminated that morning, clocked out, and thus was not an employee when the accident occurred.	Court: No genuine issue — Rodriguez was terminated before the trip; respondeat superior fails.
Non-employee mission liability — was the trip subject to USI's control or for USI's benefit?	USI’s mileage reimbursement and relationship to the job created control and benefit issues for mission liability.	Mileage reimbursement did not give USI control over route or manner; the men chose to return home and were free to go elsewhere.	Court: Trip was not under USI’s control; therefore non-employee mission liability fails (no need to decide benefit).
Affidavit sufficiency — were USI’s affidavits conclusory and insufficient for summary judgment?	Smith’s affidavit lacked factual basis and was conclusory, so it cannot support summary judgment.	Affidavit was proper; alternatively any defects were harmless given undisputed facts (termination and lack of travel control).	Court: Even if some statements were conclusory, disposition rests on undisputed facts, so any error was harmless; summary judgment affirmed.

Painter v. Ameritex Drilling I, Ltd., 561 S.W.3d 125 (Tex. 2018) (test for employee status and course-and-scope based on employer's right to control)
Arbelaez v. Just Brakes Corp., 149 S.W.3d 717 (Tex. App.—Austin 2004) (elements for conduct being within course and scope of employment)
Arvizu v. Estate of Puckett, 364 S.W.3d 273 (Tex. 2012) (non-employee mission liability requires direction/control and employer benefit)
SeaBright Ins. Co. v. Lopez, 465 S.W.3d 637 (Tex. 2015) (application of vicarious-liability principles to travel-to-work facts)
St. Joseph Hosp. v. Wolff, 94 S.W.3d 513 (Tex. 2002) (general principles of vicarious liability)
Wilson v. H.E. Butt Grocery Co., 758 S.W.2d 904 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 1988) (mileage reimbursement without route/control does not place employee in course and scope)