Wansey v. Hole
379 S.W.3d 246
| Tex. | 2012Background
- Plaintiff Hole sues Wansey driving school for negligent hiring/supervision; seeks damages for cost of driving course, not harm to daughter.
- Incident: Hole’s daughter encountered an instructor in a questionable situation; no proven misconduct or harm established.
- Wansey refused full refund; issued only pro-rated $18; plaintiff claimed breach of contract and negligent hiring/supervision.
- Jury awarded $225 compensatory, $5,000 attorney fees, $15,000 exemplary damages; appellate court partly affirmed, partly reversed.
- Court of Appeals affirmed negligent hiring damages; held injuries were economic losses from contract and caused by negligent hiring.
- Texas rule: negligent hiring requires damages from foreseeable misconduct of an employee; economic loss rule bars contract-based harms in tort.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether negligent hiring requires actual damages from employee misconduct | Hole: damages arise from employee misconduct proximately caused by negligent hiring. | Wansey: no proof of employee harm; damages not linked to hiring. | No; lack of damages proves no liability for negligent hiring. |
| Whether economic losses from a contract dispute are recoverable as tort damages for negligent hiring | Hole: tuition loss is recoverable as negligent-hiring damages. | Wansey: economic loss rule bars tort recovery for contract-only harm. | Yes; economic losses not recoverable in tort; damages not proximately caused by negligence. |
| Whether the trial court adequately supported damages for negligent hiring under existing Texas law | Hole: evidence of harm suffices under negligent hiring theory. | Wansey: no evidence of actual harm from employee misconduct. | Insufficient evidence; court reversed in part and rendered for Wansey. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. Swett & Crawford of Tex., Inc., 178 S.W.3d 373 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2005) (negligent hiring requires plaintiff to show employee harmed plaintiff)
- Gonzales v. Willis, 995 S.W.2d 729 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1999) (negligent hiring/supervision require actionable tort against plaintiff)
- Mackey v. U.P. Enters., Inc., 935 S.W.2d 446 (Tex.App.-Tyler 1996) (negligent hiring/supervision implied damages requirement)
- Schneider v. Esperanza Transmission Co., 744 S.W.2d 595 (Tex. 1987) (negligent entrustment requires harm from driver’s negligence)
- TXI Transp. Co. v. Hughes, 306 S.W.3d 230 (Tex. 2010) (negligent hiring should mirror negligent entrustment harm requirement)
- Sw. Bell Tel. Co. v. DeLanney, 809 S.W.2d 493 (Tex. 1991) (economic loss rule bars tort for purely contract damages)
- Sterling Chem. Inc. v. Texaco Inc., 259 S.W.3d 793 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2007) (economic damages recoverable only where tort duty exists apart from contract)