Ruben Vasquez v. Southern Tire Mart LLC
2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 9203
Tex. App.2012Background
- Vasquez, employed by Republic Services (Duncan Disposal), was driving a garbage truck in Ward County when a tire blew and brakes failed, causing the truck to leave the roadway and crash onto railroad tracks.
- Vasquez alleged the tire was retreaded and supplied by Southern Tire; he claimed Southern Tire installed a retread against instructions to use new tires.
- Vasquez asserted Southern Tire breached its duty by installing a retread and that the tire was unsafe for a loaded garbage truck.
- Southern Tire moved for no-evidence summary judgment; Vasquez amended his petition to include a per se FMCSA violation under 49 C.F.R. § 393.75.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Southern Tire and severed the Republic claim; Vasquez appealed challenging the no-evidence ruling.
- The appellate court affirmed, concluding there was no genuine issue of material fact on duty, breach, or causation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the no-evidence summary judgment was proper given Vasquez’s evidence | Vasquez argues there is more than a scintilla of evidence of duty and breach | Southern Tire contends no admissible evidence showed a duty or breach | No reversible error; no genuine issue of material fact on duty/breach |
| Whether FMCSA regulations support a per se violation | Regulations show retreads may be restricted and support per se violation | Regulation does not impose a duty on Southern Tire for a garbage truck | No per se violation established against Southern Tire |
| Whether an admission by a party-opponent creates evidence of duty and breach | Area manager’s statement is admissible under Rule 801(e)(2)(D) and shows duty/breach | Statement is hearsay and, even if admissible, does not establish duty | Hearsay objection not preserved; but even if admitted, no duty/breach shown |
| Whether the evidence establishes proximate causation | Retread tire caused loss of control and crash | No evidence shows causation; blowout cause unspecified | No evidence of cause-in-fact or foreseeability; causation not shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Mayes, 236 S.W.3d 754 (Tex. 2007) (summary judgment standards; evidence must show genuine issue of fact)
- Smith v. O’Donnell, 288 S.W.3d 417 (Tex. 2009) (no-evidence standard requires nonmovant to raise genuine issue)
- Western Investments, Inc. v. Urena, 162 S.W.3d 547 (Tex. 2005) (proximate causation requires both cause-in-fact and foreseeability)
- Marathon Corp. v. Pitzner, 106 S.W.3d 724 (Tex. 2003) (test for cause-in-fact; substantial factor in injury)
- Doe v. Boys Clubs of Greater Dallas, Inc., 907 S.W.2d 472 (Tex. 1995) (foreseeability and factual basis for causation)
- DeLanney, Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. DeLanney, 809 S.W.2d 493 (Tex. 1991) (duty may arise from tort principles independent of contract)
- Jim Walter Homes, Inc. v. Reed, 711 S.W.2d 617 (Tex. 1986) (contractual vs. tort duties; dual duties possible)
- Strunk v. Belt Line Road Realty Co., 225 S.W.3d 91 (Tex.App.—El Paso 2005) (evidence sufficiency in negligence context)
- Cumpian v. Pan American Exp., Inc., 147 S.W.3d 515 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 2004) (reversal when no evidence of breach of duty)
- Todd v. Pin Oak Green, 75 S.W.3d 658 (Tex.App.—Texarkana 2002) (causation standard in negligence)
- Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Scharrenbeck, 146 Tex. 153, 204 S.W.2d 508 (Tex. 1947) (historical support for agency/command evidence)