Sammy Burchinal and Ashley Burchinal v. PJ Trailers-Seminole Management Company, LLC Texmecana Management, LLC And PJ Trailers Manufacturing, Inc., 372 S.W.3d 200

Sammy Burchinal, a Texmecana driver, delivered PJ Trailers’ products loaded onto Texmecana flatbeds; a California unloading incident caused a trailer to topple near him in March 2007.
Sammy initially sues Texmecana and Seminole; Ashley later joins for derivative claims; Manufacturing is added later, with timing disputes.
The central theory is that improper stacking by defendants’ employees caused the falling trailer and Sammy’s injuries; the California forklift operator’s role is undisputedly separate from Texmecana/Seminole/Manufacturing.
Seminole was dissolved in 2008; Rule 11 agreement followed in 2009 recognizing that PJ Trailers-Seminole had no involvement and tolling issues may arise if later proper defendants are identified.
The trial court granted summary judgments: Manufacturing on limitations; Texmecana and Seminole on negligence and other claims; Ashley’s derivative claims dismissed; on appeal, the court affirms.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is Manufacturing barred by the statute of limitations?	Misidentification tolls limits; notice to proper party.	General rule: misidentification does not toll limitations.	No; Manufacturing timely claims not shown; misidentification tolling not proven.
Do Texmecana, Seminole, and Manufacturing form a joint enterprise or alter ego?	Evidence shows shared operations and control; veil should be pierced.	No genuine joint enterprise or alter ego; separate entities.	No genuine issue; liability does not attach through joint enterprise or alter ego.
Did Texmecana owe a duty and breach regarding stacking/unloading?	Texmecana directed safe loading; failed to prevent unsafe stacking.	No duty to warn of commonly known hazards; no breach shown.	Texmecana had no duty breached; summary judgment proper.
Was res ipsa loquitur properly invoked regarding negligent stacking?	Balanced load turned unbalanced during unloading due to improper stacks.	Load was balanced during transit; forklift control with customer; res ipsa not proven.	Res ipsa not established; no breach shown.
Do Ashley’s derivative claims survive given Sammy's claims' status?	Derivative claims rely on Sammy’s injuries; impending liability.	If underlying claims fail, derivative fails too.	Ashley’s derivative claims fail as a matter of law.

Hilland v. Continental Trailways, Inc., 528 S.W.2d 828 (Tex. 1975) (misidentification tolling when notice to correct party)
SSP Partners v. Gladstrong Invs. (USA) Corp., 275 S.W.3d 452 (Tex. 2009) (single-business enterprise and alter ego limits piercing corporate veil; no automatic liability)
Castleberry v. Branscum, 721 S.W.2d 270 (Tex. 1986) (corporate veil considerations; factors for piercing the veil)
Mancorp, Inc. v. Culpepper, 802 S.W.2d 226 (Tex. 1990) (alter ego; factors for separate corporate existence)
Seidler v. Morgan, 277 S.W.3d 549 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2009) (joint enterprise and evidence standards; failure to raise fact issue)
Able v. Tex. Dep’t of Transp., 35 S.W.3d 608 (Tex. 2000) (restatement standard for joint enterprise elements)