Walters v. Allways Auto Group, Ltd., 484 S.W.3d 219

Walters sued Heyden for negligence after a head-on collision; Walters separately sued Allways Auto Group for negligent entrustment of the vehicle Heyden was driving.
Heyden had a history of DUI/DWI arrests and had recently totaled a vehicle in a DWI collision; he purchased a replacement at Allways and presented a photocopy of an Illinois license while acknowledging he lacked a valid Texas license.
Allways loaned Heyden a vehicle after his car was towed; Heyden consumed alcohol that day and later drove while intoxicated, swerving into Walters’ lane during an admitted suicide attempt.
Heyden’s blood alcohol was at least .147; he was later convicted of intoxication assault.
Allways moved for traditional summary judgment, arguing Heyden’s intentional suicide attempt was an unforeseeable superseding cause that negated proximate causation; the trial court granted summary judgment and severed the claim.
The court of appeals considered (1) whether negligent entrustment requires an independent proximate-cause showing as to the owner and (2) whether genuine fact issues precluded summary judgment on superseding cause; it reversed and remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether negligent entrustment requires proof that the owner’s negligence proximately caused the harm	Walters: plaintiff need not independently show owner’s proximate causation; driver’s proximate causation suffices	Allways: proximate causation is required to link owner’s entrustment to harm	Court: Owner’s proximate-cause showing is required (foreseeability and cause-in-fact); Walters’ first issue overruled
Whether Heyden’s suicide attempt was an unforeseeable superseding cause that precludes Allways’ liability as a matter of law	Walters: fact issues exist on foreseeability and continuity of risk (driver record, license issues, intoxication)	Allways: Heyden’s intentional act was unforeseeable and superseding, so summary judgment is proper	Court: Fact issues remain; Allways did not conclusively prove superseding cause — summary judgment reversed and remanded

Schneider v. Esperanza Transmission Co., 744 S.W.2d 595 (Tex. 1987) (sets negligent-entrustment elements including proximate cause)
Spratling v. Butler, 240 S.W.2d 1016 (Tex. 1951) (early formulation linking owner entrustment to driver-caused harm)
Phan Son Van v. Pena, 990 S.W.2d 751 (Tex. 1999) (defendant must prove intervening criminal act was unforeseeable to establish superseding cause)
TXI Transp. Co. v. Hughes, 306 S.W.3d 230 (Tex. 2010) (negligent entrustment fails if the risk that made entrustment negligent did not cause the collision)
Travis v. City of Mesquite, 830 S.W.2d 94 (Tex. 1992) (proximate cause requires cause-in-fact and foreseeability)
Am. Tobacco Co. v. Grinnell, 951 S.W.2d 420 (Tex. 1997) (summary-judgment standards for negating elements)
City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (when evidence is conclusive for summary judgment)