434 S.W.3d 244
Tex. App.2014Background
- Ramirez, a truck driver, was struck by a Colonial Freight employee’s truck while walking across a truckstop fueling area; he alleged immediate pain and later underwent neck and shoulder surgery.
- Ramirez and Lipsius (the driver) both gave depositions; Lipsius admitted he looked left, waited, removed his foot from the brake, moved forward 1–2 feet, did not look again, and then saw Ramirez and struck him.
- Lipsius had a history of driving incidents; testimony indicated Colonial Freight did not investigate his prior driving history thoroughly.
- Colonial Freight moved for a Rule 166a(i) no-evidence summary judgment challenging breach and causation (and thereby aspects of negligent entrustment and negligent hiring).
- Ramirez opposed with both depositions (110 pages total) and referenced previously filed medical records under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 18.001; he did not file affidavits or expert testimony.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Colonial Freight; the court of appeals reversed, holding Ramirez produced more than a scintilla on breach and causation and on negligent-entrustment/hiring elements challenged.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of duty (negligence) | Lipsius failed to look for pedestrians before accelerating; deposition shows inattention | No evidence driver breached standard of care or violated statute | Ramirez produced fact issue; summary judgment denied on breach |
| Causation (accident → injuries) | Ramirez’s lay testimony and medical records show immediate pain and subsequent treatment linking injuries to incident | No expert proof; nonspecific citation to deposition and records insufficient | Lay testimony + records sufficient here to raise fact issue; summary judgment denied on causation |
| Causation (conduct → incident; sole proximate cause) | Lipsius’s admitted inattention could have caused collision; therefore Colonial Freight not sole cause | Ramirez was sole proximate cause by walking in front of truck without ensuring driver saw him | Existence of factual dispute on driver’s negligence precluded finding sole proximate cause as a matter of law |
| Negligent entrustment / negligent hiring | Employer knew or should have known of driver’s unfitness; driver was negligent and caused injury | No evidence linking employer’s hiring/entrustment to claimed negligence/proximate cause | Ramirez raised fact issues on the challenged elements; summary judgment inappropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- King Ranch, Inc. v. Chapman, 118 S.W.3d 742 (Tex. 2003) (standard for more-than-a-scintilla review)
- Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc. v. Havner, 953 S.W.2d 706 (Tex. 1997) (scintilla concept and sufficiency standard)
- Bendigo v. City of Houston, 178 S.W.3d 112 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2005) (explaining no-evidence summary judgment nature)
- Aleman v. Ben E. Keith Co., 227 S.W.3d 304 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007) (when brief deposition may adequately point to evidence)
- Guevara v. Ferrer, 247 S.W.3d 662 (Tex. 2007) (lay testimony can suffice for causation in limited, common-sense circumstances)
- Morgan v. Compugraphic Corp., 675 S.W.2d 729 (Tex. 1984) (lay testimony establishing sequence of events can prove causation)
- Praesel v. Johnson, 967 S.W.2d 391 (Tex. 1998) (elements of negligence)
- Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Mayes, 236 S.W.3d 754 (Tex. 2007) (elements of negligent entrustment)