1 ... S eeTe x. R. App . P. 47. 4. 

## COURT OFAPPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 2 - 0 8 - 1 3 2 - CV
E L I Z AB E T H S ANT ANA , I NDI VI DUA L L Y AP P E L L ANT AND AS P E R S ONALR E P R E S E NT AT I VE OFT HE E S T AT E OFR OJ E L I O S ANT ANA , AND AS NE XTF R I E ND OFDI ANA S A N T A N A , R O J E L IO S A N T A N A , J R ., M AR I S S A S ANT ANA , P AUL I NE S ANT ANA AND F R E DE R I CO S ANT ANA V . ARPI N A M ERI CA M O VI NG SYSTE M , APPE L L EE S L L C AND P AULARP I N VAN L I NE S, I NC.

----- ----- -- FR O M THE 67TH DI STRI CT CO URT O F TARRA NT CO UN TY

----- ----- -- 

### MEMORANDU M OPI NI ON 1

----- ----- -- I. I NTR ODUCTI ON Th i s i s a s um m ar y j u d g m e n t appeal . A ppel l antEl i zabet h S ant ana, i ndi vi dua l l y and asper so nalr epr es ent at i ve oft he es t at e o fRoj el i o Sant ana , an d2 ... PA V L i s a f ede r al l y r egi st er ed m ot orca r r i erw i t h a D epa rt m entof

T ra n s p o rta ti o n (“D O T ” ) n u m b e r. 2 asne xtf r i end ofD i ana S ant ana , R oj el i o S ant ana , Jr . , M ar i ss a San t ana , Pau l i ne S ant ana , a n d Fr eder i co S ant ana ( her ei naf t ercol l ect i vel y r ef er r ed t o as

“ A p p e l l a n t” ) ra i s e s tw e l v e p o i n ts c h a l l e n g i n g th e tri a l c o u rt’ss u m m a ry j u d g m e n t s f o r Ap p e l l e e s , Ar p i n Am e r i c a M o v i n g Sy s t e m , L L C ( “ AAM S”) an d P a u l A rp i n V a n L i n e s , I n c . (“P A V L ” ). A p p e l l a n t c l a i m s th a t th e s u m m a ry j udg m entevi dence est abl i shes t hatg enui ne i ssues ofm at er i al factex i ston her
c la im s a g a in s tb o t h A A M S a n d P A V L . F o rt h e re a s o n s s e tf o rt h b e lo w , w e w ill
a ffi rm the tr i a l co u rt ’s su m m a ry j u d g m e n t. II . F ACTUALB AC KG ROUND R oj el i o “Ro cky” S ant ana ( “Ro cky”) w as a com m er ci al dr i ver ; on A ugu st 7, 20 04 , i n t he capaci t y of an i ndep enden tcont r act or , he dr ove a com m er ci al vehi cl e ow ned byA A M S and l eased by PA V L, 2ha ul i ng hous eho l d goodsf r om N esbi t , M i ssi ssi ppi , t o D al l as, Tex as. I ndep enden t contr act dr i ver s l i ke Ro cky
w er e p er m i t t ed t o hi r e “l um per s”t o hel p t hem l oad an d unl oad t he t r uck s; t he i nde pen den tco nt r ac tdr i ver s w er e r esp on si bl e f ors upe rvi si ng a nd pa yi ng t he “l um pe r s” t heych os e t o hi r e. AA M S and PA V L m ai nt ai n no con t r ac tor re l a ti o n s h i p w i th “ l u m p e rs ” h i re d b yth e d ri v e r.3 ... O f f i cerRo n Par kerf i r sti ndi cat ed i n hi s i ni t i al acci dent r ep ortt hat

Rocky had bee n dr i vi ng, buthel at ers ubm i t t ed an am end m entt o t he ac ci den t r eportst at i ng t hatRam i r ez had been dr i vi ng. I n any event , O f f i cerPar ker , as w el l as al l oft he ot herfi r stres pon der s, co nsi st ent l y and af f i r m at i vel y t est i f i ed t hatJoh n Doe A w ast he dr i ver and pi ct ur es of John D oe A ar e n otpi ct ur esof Rocky . 3 R o c k yd e c i d e d t o h i re t w o “ l u m p e rs ,”A l ej a n d ro C i s n e ro s a n d A l ej a n d ro Ram i r ez, to ass i sthi m on t he t r i p. Pe rA A M S pol i cy, “ l um per s”ar e n ot per m i t t ed t o ope r at e t r uck s unde rany ci r cum st anc es . Ats om e p oi ntdur i ng t he
r et ur n t r i p, Ro cky per m i t t ed R am i r ez— w ho di d not possess a com m er ci al dr i ver ’ s l i ce ns e— t o dr i ve t he ei ght ee n w hee l er . AA M S and PA V L d i d notkn ow Rockyha d hi r ed C i sn er osand R am i r ezas“ l um per s”f ort he t r i p a nd di d not aut hor i ze Ram i r ez t o dr i ve t he t r uck. O n A ugu st 7, 20 04 , w hi l e Ram i r ez w as dr i vi ng t he t r uck, i tst r uck a b r i dge suppo rtp i l l ar ; Ro cky, C i sner os, and R am i r ez w er e a l l ki l l ed. Fi r str es ponde r s att he sc ener ef er r ed t o t he three vi ct i m s asJoh n Doe A , B , an d C. The f i r str es ponde r s al l t es t i f i ed t hatJoh n Doe A w asdr i vi ng; p ic t u r e s o ft h e v ic t im s t a k e n a tt h e s c e n e o ft h e a c c id e n tw e r e re f e r r e d t o in th e d e p o sit i o n s o f t h e fi rst re sp o n d e rs a n d i n the su m m a ry j u d g m e n t affi d a v i ts ofper sons acquai nt ed w i t h R ocky and concl usi vel y e sta bl i sh t hatRo cky w as n o tJ o h n Do e A. 34 ... A ppe l l ant ’ s t w el ve poi nt s on a ppe al , w i t h l i m i t ed exc ept i ons , do n ot

se g reg a te he r a rgu m e n ts a n d a n a l y sis b e tw e e n A A M S a n d P A V L ; th e p o i n ts si m pl y gr oup b ot h def endan t s t ogether . Li ber al l y const r ui ng A ppel l ant ’ s poi nt s, w e m i r r orA ppel l ant ’ s pr esent at i on of herpoi nt s. 4 Rocky ’ s w i f e b r oughta w r ongf ul deat h s ui ton h erow n be hal fan d on b e h a l f o f R o c k y ’sm i n o r c h i l d re n . U l ti m a te l y , th e tri a l c o u rt g ra n te d s u m m a ry j udg m ent s f orA A M S and f orPA V L on al l ofA ppel l ant ’ s cl ai m s agai nstt hem . A ppel l antper f ect ed t hi s appeal , r ai si ng t w el ve poi nt s. 4

II I. A PP ELLAN T’SC AU SE S OFA CT I ON;A A M S ’ s AN DPA V L ’s T RA DI TI ONA LAN DN O -E VIDENCEM OTI ONS F ORS UMM ARYJ UDG MENT A ppel l antpl eaded causes ofact i on agai nstA A M S f ornegl i gence, ne gli g e n c e p e r s e , resi psa l oquitur, ne gl i ge nt en t r us t m ent / neg l i gen ts upe rvi si on, and gr oss negl i gence. A ppel l antpl eaded causes o fact i on agai nstPA V L as a
w or ke r ’ s com pen sa t i on no ns ubs cr i berf orgr os s neg l i gen ce unde r t he “e l ec t i on ofr em edi es ” doc t r i ne and f orvi ca r i ousl i abi l i t y un dert he doc t r i nesof
r es ponde ats upe r i or , s t at ut ory e m pl oye e, an d a ppa r entag enc y. A A M S f i l ed a no- evi dence m ot i on fo r s u m m ar y j udg m ent , cl ai m i ng t hat no evi dence exi st s t o suppo rt t he causat i on el em entofA ppel l ant ’ s negl i gence p e r se clai m s; tha t resi p s al o quitur i s nota cause ofact i on r ecogn i zed i n T exas; t hatn o evi dence of pr oxi m at e cause exi st s concer ni ng A ppel l ant ’ s negl i gence cl ai m s; t hatno evi dence exi st s i n A ppel l ant ’ s negl i gent ent r ust m ent cl ai m s t hat5

A A M S ent r ust ed i t s vehi cl e t o R am i r ez and n o evi dence exi st s t hatA A M S knew R a mi r e zwa s a n u n l i c e n s e d , r e c k l e s s d r i v e r ; t h a t n o e v i d e n c e e x i s t s t h a tAAMS act ed w i t h t he r equi si t e m ent al st at e forgr oss negl i gence; and t hatno evi dence
ex i s t s t h a tt h e d o c t r i n e s o fr e s p o n d e a ts u p e r i o r , a c t u a l a g e n c yo rap par ent agency, vi ce- pr i nci pal , orst at ut or y em pl oyee app l y . A A M S cont ends t hat R o c k yw a s a n i n d e p e n d e n t c o n t r a c to r a n d th a t n o e v i d e n c e to th e c o n tra ry exi st s. P A V L fi l e d a n o -ev i d e n c e a n d a tr a d i ti o n a l m o ti o n fo r su m m a ry j u d g m e n t. I n i t s no- evi den cem ot i on, PA V L c l ai m ed t hat n o evi den ceex i st s oft he f ol l ow i ng el em ent s of A ppel l ant ’ s cl ai m f or gr oss negl i gence: t ha t P A V Lw as t he com m on l aw or st at ut or y em pl oyer of R ocky; t hat PA V L act ed w i t h gr oss n e g l i g e n c e ; a n d tha t a n y g ros s ne g l i g e n c e b y P A V L c a u se d the ac c i d e n t. I n i ts t r adi t i ona l m ot i on f ors um m ary j udgm ent , PA V L l i kew i secl ai m ed t hatt he
su m m ary j udgm entev i den ceco ncl us i vel y ne gat est hat PA V L w ast he com m on l aw orst at ut ory e m p l o y e rofRo cky, t hatPA V L act ed w i t h gr oss negl i gence, a n d tha t an yg ros s n e g l i g e n c e b yP A V Lca u se d the ac c i d e n t.

IV . S UMM ARYJ UDG E MENTS TA NDA RDS OFR EVI EW

A . No- Evi den ceM ot i on A f t eran ad equ at e t i m e f ordi sc ove r y, t he part y w i t houtt he bur den of pr oofm ay, w i t houtpr ese nti ng evi den ce , m ovef ors um m ary j udgm enton t he6

gr ound t hatt her e i s no e vi den ce to su pportan es se nt i al el em entoft he
non m ovant’ s cl ai m ordef ense. Tex. R. C i v. P. 16 6a( i ) . T he m ot i on m ust s p e c i fi c a l l y s ta te th e e l e m e n ts fo r w h i c h th e re i s n o e v i d e n c e . Id. ; Johns on v. Bre wer & Pr itch a rd , P. C. , 7 3 S .W .3 d 1 9 3 , 2 0 7 (T e x . 2 0 0 2 ). T h e tri a l c o u rt
m us tgr antt he m ot i on un l es s t he nonm ova ntp r od uce s su m m ary j udgm ent e v i d e n c e th a t ra i s e s a g e n u i n e i s s u e o f m a te ri a l fa c t. S ee Te x . R. Ci v. P. 1 6 6 a(i ) & c m t.; S w . Elec . Power Co. v. Grant, 73 S. W . 3d 211, 215 ( Tex. 2 0 0 2 ). W h e n re v i e w i n g a n o -e v i d e n c e s u m m a ryj u d g m e n t, w e e x a m i n e th e e n ti re r e c o r d in t h e lig h t m o s t f a v o r a b le t o t h e n o n m o v a n t , in d u lg in g e v e r yre a s o n a b le i n fe re n c e a n d re s o l v i n g a n yd o u b ts a g a i n s t th e m o ti o n . Sudanv. Su dan , 199 S. W . 3d 291, 292 ( Tex. 2006 ) . I ft he nonm ova ntbr i ngsf or w ar d m or e t han a sci nt i l l a o fp r obati ve evi dence t hatrai ses a genu i ne i ssue of m at er i al f act , t hen
a n o -e v i d e n c e s u m m a ryj u d g m e n t i s n o t p ro p e r. Moore v. K MartCor p. , 981 S . W . 2d 26 6, 26 9 ( Tex . A pp. — S an A nt oni o 19 98 , pet . deni ed) . W e r evi ew a no- evi den ces um m ary j udgm entf orev i den cet hatw oul d e nab l e r ea so nab l e a nd fa i r-m i n d e d j u ro rsto d i ffe r i n th e i r c o n c l u s i o n s . Ham i lton v. W

i l son , 249 S. W . 3d 425, 426 ( Tex. 2008 ) ( ci t i ng City of Kel ler v. W i l son , 168 S. W . 3d 802, 8 2 2 (T e x . 2 0 0 5 )).7

Less t han a sci nt i l l a o fev i dence exi st s w hen t he evi dence i s so w eak t hat i t d o e s n o th i n g m o re th a n c re a te a m e re s u rm i s e o r s u s p i c i o n o f a fa c t. K i ndred
v. Con/Chem , I

nc. , 650 S . W . 2d 61, 63 ( Tex. 198 3) . M or e t han a sc i nt i l l a o f evi dence exi st s w hen t he evi dence w oul d enabl e r easonabl e and f ai r - m i nded p e o p l e t o re a c h d i ffe re n t c o n c l u s i o n s . Ford Motor Co. v. Ridgway , 135 S. W . 3d 5 9 8 , 6 0 1 (T e x . 2 0 0 4 ); Mer rel l D owPhar

m . , I nc. v. Havner, 953 S. W . 2d 706, 711 ( Tex. 1997 ) . A genui ne i ss ue ofm at er i al f ac ti s r ai se d bypr ese nt i ng e v i d e n c e o n w h i c h a re a s o n a b l e j u ryc o u l d re tu rn a v e rd i c t i n th e n o n m o v a n t’s fa v o r. Mo o re , 9 8 1 S .W .2 d a t2 6 6 ; see al so A nderson v. Li

berty Lobb y, I

nc. , 477 U . S. 242 , 255 –56 , 106 S. C t . 250 5, 251 3–1 4 ( 198 6) ( i nt er pr et i ng F ed. R . C i v . P . 5 6 ). B. Tr adit i ona lM ot i on A def end ant w ho con cl us i vel y neg at esatl ea stonees se nt i al el em entof
a c a u s e o f a c ti o n i s e n ti tl e d to s u m m a ryj u d g m e n t o n th a t c l a i m . IHSCe da rs Trea tm en tC tr. o f

D eSoto, Tex. , I

nc. v. Mas on , 143 S . W . 3d 794, 798 ( Tex. 2 0 0 4 ); seeT e x . R . C i v . P . 1 6 6 a (b), (c). W h e n re v i e w i n g a s u m m a ry j u d g m e n t,
w e ta k e a s tru e a l l e v i d e n c e f a v o ra b l e t o t h e n o n m o v a n t, a n d w e in d u l g e e v e ry r ea so na bl e i nferenc e and r eso l ve an y do ub t s i n t he no nm ov an t ’ s fa v o r. IHS Cedars Treatm en tC tr. , 1 4 3 S . W . 3d at79 8. Sum m ar y j udg m enti s pr oper5 ... See, e. g. , 49 C. F. R. §§ 3 76. 11–. 12, 390. 3, 390. 5, 392. 1, 392. 60

(2 0 0 8 ).

6 ... A ppel l ant ’ s cl ai m agai nst PA V L i s l i m i t ed t o a cl ai m f orPA V L’ s al l eged gr o s s n e g l i g e n c e b e c a u s e Ap p e l l a n tm a d e a n e x p r e s s , w r i t t e n e l e c t i o n of r e m e d ie s , c h o o s in g t o p u r s u e a T e x a s W o r k e r ’s C o m p e n s a t io n B e n e f it s c la im a s th e re m e d yfo r a n yn e g l i g e n c e o f P A V L . N o n e th e l e s s , b e c a u s e A p p e l l a n t’s al l egat i ons ofgr oss negl i gence agai n st P A V Lar e pr em i sed on t hese sam e FM C SR doct r i nes , PA V L ( al ong w i t h AA M S) ch al l eng est hei rap pl i ca bi l i t y. 8 w h e n p a rti e s d o n o t d i s p u te th e re l e v a n t fa c ts . Ha vlenv. Mc D o uga ll, 22 S .W .3 d 3 4 3 , 3 4 5 (T e x . 2 0 0 0 ). W hen a part y m ove s f or su m m ary j udgm ent unde r bot h r ul es 166 a( c) an d 166 a( i ) , w e w i l l f i r str evi ew t he t r i al c ou r t ’ s j udgm entunde rt he st and ar dsof
ru l e 1 6 6 a (i ). Ford Motor Co. , 1 3 5 S .W .3 d at 6 0 0 . Ift h e ap p e l l a n t f a i l e d to pr oduc e mor e t h a n a s c i n t i l l a o fe v i d e n c e u n d e rt h a tb u r d e n , t h e n t h e r e i s no nee d t o a nal yz e w het hert he appe l l ee ’ s su m m ary j udgm entpr oofs at i sf i ed t he l e s s s tri n g e n t ru l e 1 6 6 a (c ) b u rd e n . Id. V . T HEF EDERALM OTO RC ARRIE RS AFETYR E GU LAT I ON(F M C S R ) P OINTS I n p o rt i o n s o f he r f i rst, se c o n d , th i rd, fou rt h , fi fth, n i n th , a n d elev e n th poi nt s, A ppel l antr ai ses var i ous ar gum ent s ass ert i ng t ha t the t r i al courter r ed b yg ran ti n g su m m a ry j u d g m e n t be c a u se the F e d e ral M o to r C a rr i e r S a fety Regul at i ons 5 ( “F M C SR”) d oc t r i nesofs t at ut ory e m pl oye e, nond el ega bl e d ut y, o rv i c a r i o u s l i a b i l i t ya p p l y . Ap p e l l e e s P AVL 6a n d A A M S a rg u e th a t th e s u m m a ry j ud gm e nte vi de nc e co nc l us i ve l y e s t a bl i s he d t hei na pp l i c a bl i t y oft heF M CSR7 ... I n h i s sum m ar y j udg m entaf f i davi t , Jack Fuyat , Sr . , Sen i orV i ce

Pr es i den tofCor por at e Af f ai r s f ort he A r pi n G r oup, I nc. , and f or m er l y f orPau l A r pi n V an Li nes, I nc. , sw ear s t hatnei t herA A M S norPA V L everh ad a cont r act ofem pl oym entw i t h Rock y orw i t h Al ej and r o R am i r ezorA l ej and r o Ci sn er osan d th a t R o c k yw a s a n i n d e p e n d e n t c o n tra c to r. N o c o n t ro v e rti n g s u m m a ry 9 doc t r i nesofst at ut ory em pl oye e, nondel ega bl e dut y, and vi ca r i ousl i abi l i t y t o t he pr es entf ac t s bec aus e Roc ky w asan i nde pen den tco nt r ac t oran d w asnot dr i vi ng w hen t he ac ci den toc cur r ed and bec aus e C i sn er os and Ram i r ez w er e n ot e m pl oy e e s o fe i t he rPAVL o rAA M S. Th e FM C S R def i ne “em pl oyee” and “em pl oyer . ” The FM C S R def i ne an “em pl oyee” as

a n yin d iv id u a l, o t h e rt h a n a n e m p lo y e r , w h o is e m p lo y e d b ya n e m p lo y e ra n d w h o in t h e c o u r s e o fh is orhe rem pl oym entd i r ec t l y a f f ec t s com m er ci al m ot or v e h i c l e sa fety . S u c h term i n c l u d e s a d ri v e r of a com m er ci al m ot orve hi cl e ( i ncl udi ng a n i nde pen den t con t r ac t orw hi l e i n t he cou r seofope r ati ng a co m m er ci al m ot orve hi cl e) , a m ec han i c, an d a f r ei ght h a n d l e r. 49 C. F. R. § 390. 5. Th e s t a t ut ory de f i ni t i on of a n “ e m pl oy e r ” un de rt heF M CSR
r ea ds , “ [ A ] ny p er so n e nga ged i n a busi nes s af f ec t i ng i nt er st at e com m er cew ho
ow ns or

leases a com m erci

al m otor vehicle i

n conn ecti

on with thatbusi

ness , orassi gns em pl oyees t o oper at e i t. . . . ” Id. (e m p h a s i s a d d e d ). The sum m ar y j udg m entevi dence con cl usi vel y est abl i shes t hatRo cky w as an i nde pen den tco nt r ac t or 7 an d t hathew asnotdr i vi ng t he com m er ci al m ot orj udg m entevi dence exi st s. 8 ... A s pr evi ous l y m ent i one d, f i r str es ponde r s al l t es t i f i ed t hatJoh n Doe A w as t he dr i verand t he sum m ar y j udg m ent af f i davi t s of per sons acquai nt ed w i t h Rock y c onc l us i vel y e st abl i sh t hatt he phot ogr aph s ofJohn D oe A ar e n ot phot ogr aph s ofRock y. 10 v e h i c l e at th e ti m e o f t h e ac c i d e n t. 8I n d e p e n d e n t c o n tra c to rsa re s ta tu to ry e m p lo y e e s u n d e rt h e F M C S R d e f in it io n s e tf o rt h a b o v e o n lyw h e n t h e ya r e “ in t hec ou r s e o fo pe r a t i ng a c om m e r c i a l m ot orv e hi c l e . ” 49 C. F. R. § 39 0. 5; Poul i ot v. Paul A r

pi n V an Li nes , 292 F. Su pp . 2d 374, 379– 80 ( D. Con n. 2003 ) ( hol di ng “t he def i n i ti on of ‘ em pl oyee’ i n sect i on 3 90 . 5 w oul d appl y t o an i n d e p e n d e n t c o n t r a c t o r w h i l e t h e c o n t r a c t o r i s d r i v i n g h i s c o m m e r c i al m ot or v e h ic le o n a n yp u b lic o rp r iv a t e ro a d o rh ig h w a y ” ). B e c a u s e R o c k yw a s n o t“ in t he cou r seofope r at i ng a co m m er ci al m ot orve hi cl e”w hen t he ac ci den t occur r ed, he does not m eett he FM C S R def i ni t i on of em pl oyee and as a m at t er o f l a w w a s n o t a s ta tu to rye m p l o y e e o f e i th e r A A M S o r P A V L . A c c o rd Ill. Bulk Car r i er , I nc. v. Ja ckson , 9 0 8 N . E.2d 248, 259 ( I nd. Ct . A pp. 2009 ) ( hol di ng d ri v e r w a s n o t s ta tu to rye m p l o y e e u n d e r F M C S R ); Cl arendon Nat ’

l I ns . Co. v. John son , 6 6 6 S .E .2 d 5 6 7 , 5 7 1 (G a . C t. A p p . 2 0 0 8 ) (sa m e ). A nd t he sum m ar y j udg m entev i dence l i kew i se concl usi vel y show s t hat C i sne ros a n d R am i r ez do notm eett he FM C S R def i ni t i on of “em pl oyee” set f ort h a bove . The su m m ary j udgm entev i den cees t abl i sh es t ha tRock y, not9 ... I n h e r n i nt h poi nt , A ppel l antar gues t hata f acti ssue w as pr esent ed

on her cl ai m s of part i ci pat or y/vi car i ous l i abi l i t y f orr espond eatsuper i or , act ual and ap par entag enc y, vi cepr i nci pal , an d s t at ut ory e m pl oy ee . Bec aus e t he s u m m a ryj u d g m e n t e v i d e n c e c o n c l u s i v e l y e s ta b l i s h e s th e l a c k o f a n e m p l o y e rem pl oye e r el at i ons hi p orofan y t ypeofr el at i ons hi p a tal l be t w ee n t he “lum p e rs” a n d eit h e r A A M S o r PA V L , n o g e n u i n e i ss u e o f m a teri a l fa c t ex i sts con ce r ni ng a ny o ft hes e t heo r i esofvi ca r i ousl i abi l i t y. 11 AA M S o rPAVL, h i r e d Ci s ne r osa nd Ra m i r e z . Roc k y do e s n otm e e tt heF M CSR def i ni t i on of “em pl oyer ” because he is n ot“a per son w ho ow ns orl eases a com m er ci al m ot orve hi cl e. ” A A M S ow ned t he com m er ci al m ot orve hi cl e a nd PA V L l eased i tf r om A A M S . Because R ocky do es notm eett he def i ni t i on of an “em pl oyer , ” C i sner os and R am i r ez cannotqual i f y as “em pl oyees” because t hey
w er e n ot“ em pl oye d byan em pl oye r . ” Thus , unde rt he f ac t s oft hi s ca se , t he F M C S R sta tu to ry e m p l o y e e d o c tr i n e o f vi c a ri o u s l i a b i l i ty i s i n a p p l i c a b l e to b o th R oc kyan d to C i sn eros an d R am i r ez. 9 A ddi t i onal l y, PA V L poi nt s outt hatt he FM C S R do not appl y her e because A ppel l anti s nota “m em ber of t he pub l i c” w hom t he r egul at i ons w er e desi gned t o pr ot ec t . The vi ca r i ousl i abi l i t y f i ct i on oft he st at ut ory e m pl oye e d oct r i ne app l i es onl y t o t he ext ent nec es sa r y t o i ns ur e t he ca r r i er ’ s r es pons i bi l i t y f ort he p u b l ic ’s s a f e t y . See W hite v. Excal

i bur I ns . C o ., 5 9 9 F .2 d 5 0 , 5 3 (5 th C i r.),
cert. denied, 4 4 4U .S . 9 6 5 (1 9 7 9 ), super se ded on o ther

groundsby regul

ati on as stated i

n Si mpson v. Empi

re Truck Li

nes, I nc. , 5 7 1 F .3 d 4 7 5 , 4 7 5 (5 th C i r.12

2 0 0 9 ); Mor

r i s v. JTM Mater

i al s, I nc ., 7 8 S .W .3 d 2 8 , 3 9 , 4 3 (T e x . A p p .— F o rt W ort h 2002, no p et . ) ( r ec ogni z i ng t hatFM C SR pr ee m ptst at e l aw i n t ortac t i ons i n w h i c h a m e m b e r o f th e p u b l i c is in ju r e d ); s e ea ls o Sh a r p lessv. Sim , 209 S. W . 3d 825, 830 ( Tex. A pp. — D al l as2006 , pe t . de ni ed) ( “Re gar dl es s oft he t y p e o fre la t io n s h ip b e t w e e n t h e c a r r ie r a n d t h e d r iv e r , h o w e v e r , t h e c a r r ie ris not excused f r om t he r egul at i ons t hatt r eatt he dr i veras a st at ut or y em pl oyee f o r p ur p o s es o f lia b ility to th eg en era l p ub lic ” ) (e m p h a s i s a d d e d ); T a mezv. S w. Motor Transp. , I

nc. , 155 S . W . 3d 564, 573 ( Tex. A pp. — San A nt oni o 200 4, no pet . ) ( r ecogn i zi ng po l i cy und er l yi ng FM C S R does notappl y as t o co- em pl oyees o fm o t o r c a r r ie r s in ju r e d b y t h e ir f e llo w e m p lo y e e s ’ n e g lig e n c e s in c e t h e yc o u ld
r e c o v e rf r o m t h e ire m p lo y e rin w o r k e r s ’ c o m p e n s a t io n ). B e c a u s e A p p e lla n tis not a “m em ber of t he gen er al publ i c, ” t he st at ut ory e m pl oye e f i ct i on do esnot a p p l y . See, e. g. , W hite , 599 F. 2d a t53. To t he ext entA ppe l l ant ’ s f i r st , s ec ond, thi r d, f ourt h, f i f t h, ni nt h, an d el eve nt h poi nt s cl ai m t hat t he t r i al cou rt er r ed by gr ant i ng su m m ary j udgm ent bec aus e t he FM C SR doct r i nesofs t at ut ory e m pl oye e, non de l ega bl e d ut y, or vi car i ous l i abi l i t y appl y t o t he pr esentf act s, w e over r ul e t hose poi nt s. V I. N EGL I GENCE , N EGL I GENCEP ERS E , G ROSSN E GL I GE NC E ,AN D RESI PSAL OQUITUR Ap p e l l a n tc l a i ms i n h e rf i f t h a n d s e v e n t h p o i n t s t h a tAAMS a n d P AVL
w e re n e g l i g e n t an d n e g l i g e n t pe r se b yall e g e d l yfai l i n g to p rov i d e s a fety13

t r ai ni ng t o Rock y a nd byf ai l i ng t o e ns ur e Roc ky’ s co m pl i anc e w i t h va r i ous FM C SR. L i ke w i se , i n port i onsofhe rf i r st , s ec ond , t hi r d, f ourt h, f i f t h, ni nt h, t ent h, and el event h poi nt s, A ppel l antar gues t hatA A M S and PA V L possessed
no nd e l e ga bl e d ut i e s u nd e r e s s e nt i a l l y t he s a m e FM CSR a s f ol l ow s : 49 C. F. R. § 375. 207 ( 2008) ( i t e m s t ha tm us tb e i n a dv e rt i s e m e nt s ) ; 49 C. F. R. § 38 3. 35 ( 200 8) ( not i f i ca t i on ofpr evi ousem pl oym ent ) ; 49 C . F. R. § 392. 1 ( dr i vi ng of
c o m m e rc i a l m o to r v e h i c l e s ); 4 9 C .F .R . § 3 9 2 .3 (2 0 0 8 ) (i l l o r fa ti g u e d d r iv e r); 4 9 C .F .R . § 3 9 2 .6 ( s c h e d u l e s to c o n fo rm w i th s p e e d l i m i ts ); 4 9 C .F .R . § 392. 6 0 ( u n a u t h o r i z e d p e r s o n s n o tt o b e t r a n s p o rt e d ) ; 4 9 C. F . R . § 390. 13 ( 20 08 ) ( a i d i ng orabet t i ng vi ol at i ons) ; 49 C . F. R . § 3 90 . 3( e) ( gener al appl i cabi l i t y) ; 49 C . F. R . § 3 90 . 35 ( 20 08 ) ( cert i f i cat es, r eport s, and r ecor ds; fa l s i fi c a ti o n , re p ro d u c ti o n , o r a l te ra ti o n ); 4 0 C .F .R . § 5 .1 0 5 (2 0 0 8 ) (d efi n i ti o n s ); 49 C . F. R . § 3 91 . 1 ( 20 08 ) ( scope ofthe r ul es i n t hi s part , addi t i onal qu a l i f i c a t i on s ; d ut i es ofc a r r i e rd r i ve r s ) ; 49 C. F. R. § 39 1. 15 ( 2008) ( di sq ual i f i ca t i on ofdr i ver s) ; an d 49 C . F. R. § 391 . 23 ( 200 8) ( m axi m um dr i vi ng t im e f o rp r o p e rt y -c a r r y in g v e h ic le s ). I n A p p e lla n t ’s s ix t h p o in t , s h e c la im s in th ree se n ten c e s t h a t he r pl e a d i n g o f t h e d o c tr i n e o f resi p s al o quitur i s su f f i ci ent t o def eatA A M S ’ s and PA V L’ s no- evi dence sum m ar y j udg m entm ot i ons. I n her t w el f t h poi nt , she c o n t ends t hata m ot orcar r i ercan be l i abl e f ort he gr oss negl i gence of i t s agent s orvi ce pr i nci pal s.14

A ne gl i gen ceca us e o f ac t i on r equ i r es pr oofof( 1) a l ega l dut y ow ed by
o n e p e r s o n t o a n o t h e r , ( 2 ) a b r e a c h o ft h a td u t y , a n d (3 ) d a m a g e s p r o x im a t e ly
c a u s e d b yth e b re a c h . D . Hous ton, I nc. v. Lo ve , 92 S. W . 3d 450, 454 ( Tex. 2 0 0 2 ). N e g l i g e n c ep e r se i s a c o n c e p t ad o p ted b ythe civi l co u rt s i n w h i c h a d u ty i s bas ed on a s t and ar d ofco nduc tcr ea t ed by a s t at ut e r at hert han on t he
r e a s o n a b l yp ru d e n t p e rs o n te s t u s e d i n p u re n e g l i g e n c e c l a i m s . Smithv. Merr itt, 9 4 0 S .W .2 d 6 0 2 , 6 0 7 (T e x . 1 9 9 7 ); Om ega Contr acti ng, I nc. v. To r

res , 1 9 1 S .W .3 d 8 2 8 , 8 3 9 (T e x . A p p .— F o rt W o rth 2 0 0 6 , n o p e t.) (o p . o n re h ’g .) ( di sc us si ng ne gl i gen cepe rs e i n t he con t extof n ondel ega bl e d ut i esunde rt he FM C SR) . I n a ne gl i gen cepers e ca se , t he f ac t f i nde ri s notas ke d t o de ci de
w het hert he def endan tact ed as a r easonabl y pr uden tp er son w oul d have act ed und ert he sam e orsi m i l arci r cum st ances; i nst ead, the st at ut e i t sel fst at es w hat
a re a s o n a b l yp ru d e n t p e rs o n w o u l d h a v e d o n e . Om egaContrac ti ng , 191 S .W .3 d a t8 3 9 . Ifa n e x c u s e isn o tra is e d , t h e o n lyin q u ir yf o rt h e f a c t f in d e ris
w het hert he def endan tvi ol at ed t he st at ut e and, i fso, w het hert he vi ol at i on w as a p ro x i m a te c a u s e o f th e i n j u ry . Id. T o p ro v e th a t a d e fe n d a n t ’s n e g l i g e n c e c o n s ti tu te d g ro s s n e g l i g e n c e , a p l a i n ti ff m u s t p ro v e t w o e l e m e n ts : (1 ) th a t v i e w e d o bj e c ti v e l yf ro m th e a c to r’s st and poi nt , t he ac tor om i ss i on i nvol ved an ex t r em e d egr eeofr i sk , co ns i der i ng15

t he pr oba bi l i t y a nd m agn i t udeoft he pot ent i al ha r m t o ot her s, an d ( 2) t hatt he
ac t orm us tha ve ha d act ual , s ubj ec t i ve aw ar ene ssoft he r i ski nvol ved , but
nev ert hel es s pr oce ede d i n c ons ci ousi ndi f f er enc e t o t he r i ght s, s af et y, or w e l fa re o f o th e rs . Mo b i l O i l C o r p. v. El l ender, 968 S . W . 2d 917, 921 ( Tex. 199 8) . Ev i den ceofs i m pl e n egl i gen cei s noten ough t o pr oveei t hert he
o bj e c ti v e o r s u bj e c ti v e e l e m e n ts o f g ro s s n e g l i g e n c e . Id . H e re , A A M S a n d P A V Lb o th file d n o -e v i d e n c e m o ti o n s fo r s u m m a ry j udgm enton t he i ss ue ofca us at i on. Bec aus e c aus at i on i s an el em entof A ppel l ant ’ s negl i gence, negl i gence perse, and gr oss negl i g e n c e cl ai m s, even i f su m m a ry j u d g m e n t ev i d e n c e ex i ste d tha t A A M S a n d P A V Lw e re n e g l i g e n t,
v io la t e d o n e o ft h e s t a t u t o r yd u t ie s a lle g e d b yA p p e lla n t , o rw e r e g r o s s ly neg l i gen t , i n l i ght of A A M S’ s and PA V L’ s no- evi den cem ot i onson t he i ss ue of
c a u s a t io n , A p p e lla n th a d t h e b u r d e n t o c o m e f o r w a r d w it h m o r e t h a n a s c in t illa
o f ev i d e n c e tha t A A M S ’s n e g l i g e n c e w a s a p ro x i m a te c a u se o f t h e ac c i d e n t, th a t A A M S ’s an d P A V L ’s a l l e g e d sta tu to ry F M C S R v i o l a ti o n s w e re a p rox i m a te c a us e of t he a c c i de nt , a nd t ha t PAVL’ s a l l e ge d gr os s ne gl i ge nce w as a p ro x i m a te c a u s e o f th e a c c i d e n t. See, e. g. , D . Houston, I nc. , 92 S. W . 3d at 4 5 4 ; Mobi

l Oi l Cor p. , 9 6 8 S .W .2 d a t 9 2 1 ; Om egaContrac ti ng , 19 1 S . W . 3d at 839 . A ppe l l antpoi nt s ust o no su ch su m m ary j udgm entevi den ce ; A A M S’ s and PA V L’ s su m m ary j udgm entev i den cees t abl i sh est hatRock y ha d no t r i ps10 ... W i t hi n herf ourt h poi nt , A ppel l antcl ai m s A A M S negl i gentl y ent r ust ed

t h e t r u c kt o R o c k y . B e c a u s e t h e s u m m a r yju d g m e n te v id e n c e c o n c lu s iv e ly es t abl i s h e d t h a tRo c k yw a s n o td r i v i n g a tt h e t i m e o ft h e a c c i d e n t , a ny negl i gent ent r ust m entto R ocky, as a m at t ero fl aw , w as no ta pr oxi m at e cause o f th e a c c i d e n t, a n d t h e t ri a l c o u rt d i d n o t e rr b yg ra n ti n g A A M S ’sa n d P A V L ’s no- evi dence- of

- causat i o n su m m a ry j u d g m e n t m o ti o n s o n A p p e l l ant ’ s t heory t hat A A M S orPA V L n egl i gen t l y e nt r us t ed t he t r uckt o Rock y. 16 sc hed ul ed aft er t hi s one , Rockyw ast ol d hedi d notha ve t o r et ur n t o Dal l ason th e e v e n i n g o f th e a c c i d e n t, a n d R o c k yh a d n o t e x c e e d e d th e n u m b e r o f h o u rs he w as per m i t t ed t o dr i ve. Becau se no sum m ar y j udg m entevi dence exi st s t hat anyvi ol at i on ofan y FM C SR by A A M S orPA V L p r oxi m at el y c aus ed t he
ac ci de n t , w e o v e r r u l e Ap p e l l a n t ’ s s e v e n t h , t e n t h , a n d t w e l f t h p o i n t s a n d t he bal anc e o fhe rf i r st , s ec ond, t hi r d, f ourt h, 10f i f t h, ni nt h and el event h poi nt s. Resi psa l oquitur i s a r ul e ofevi dence w her eby negl i gence oft he al l eged
w r ongdo erm ay be i nf er r ed f r om t he m er e f ac tthatt he ac ci den tha ppe ned , p r o v id e d (1 ) t h e c h a r a c t e ro ft h e a c c id e n ta n d t h e c ir c u m s t a n c e s a t t e n d in g it l ea d r e a s o n a b l yt o t h e b e l i e ft h a t , i n t h e a b s e n c e o fn e g l i g e n c e , i tw o u l d n ot have occu r r ed, and ( 2) t he t hi ng t hatcaused t he i nj ur y i s show n t o have been
u n d e r th e m a n a g e m e n t a n d c o n tro l o f th e a l l e g e d w ro n g d o e r. Haddockv. A r nspi ger, 7 9 3 S .W .2 d 9 4 8 , 9 5 0 (T e x . 1 9 9 0 ). T h e e f f e c to fs u c c e s s f u lly i nvoki ng t he resi

psa l oquitur doc t r i ne i s t ha tt he pl ai nt i f fca n s urvi ve n o -e v i d e n c e p ro c e d u ra l c h a l l e n g e s . S e e Mo b il Ch em . Co . v. Bell, 517 S. W . 2d17

2 4 5 , 2 5 1 (T e x . 1 9 7 5 ) (e x p l a i n i n g t h a t n o p re s u m p ti o n o f d e fe n d a n t’s
n e g l i g e n c e a ri se s, ins tea d th e juryis m e rel yfree to i n fer n e g l i g e n c e ; th e p l a i n ti ff conti nues t o have bu r den of per suadi ng j ur y by pr epon der ance ofevi dence t hat d e fe n d a n t w a s n e g l i g e n t). H e re, A p p e l l a n t ha s n o t su c c e ss fu l l yi n v o k e d the d o c tr i n e o f res i psa lo quitur t o a voi d AA M S’ s and PA V L’ s no- evi den ces um m ary j ud gm ent cha l l eng es . Appel l antdi d notes t abl i sh tha tt he t hi ng t hatca us ed t he i nj ury— her e, the dr i veroft he com m er ci al m ot orve hi cl e, w ho w asnot R ocky— w as undert he m anagem entand contr ol oft he al l eged
w r ong doer

— A A M S orPA V L. T h a ti s, because nei t herC i sner os norRam i r ez w er e act ual orst at ut or y em pl oyees ofA A M S orPA V L, t hey w er e notunder A A M S ’s o rP A V L ’s c o n t r o l. W e o v e rr u l e A p p e l l a n t’ s s i x th p o i n t.

V II . N E GL I GE NTE NTR UST MENT I n he rei ght h poi nt , A ppe l l antar gue s t hatt he t r i al co urter r ed by g r ant i ng su m m ary j udgm enton h erne gl i gen ten t r us t m entcl ai m be ca us e a f ac ti ss ue exi st s ast o w het her“ A A M S tr us t ed i t s veh i cl e t o Al ej and r o Ram i r ezan d/or A l ej and r o C i sn er os ” and “k new ors houl d ha ve kno w n Al ej and r o Ram i r ezan d/or A l ej a n d ro C i s n e rs o s w e re u n l i c e n s e d , i n c o m p e te n t, o r re c k l e s s .”18

To est abl i sh negl i gent ent r ust m ent of an aut om obi l e, a pl ai nt i f fm ust p rov e the foll o w i n g e l e m e n ts: (1 ) th e o w n e r e n tr u ste d the au to m o b i l e , (2 ) to a per son w ho w as an i ncom pet ent , orr eckl ess dr i ver , ( 3) w ho t he ow nerknew
orshoul d have kno w n w as i ncom pet entorr eckl ess, ( 4) the dr i verw as neg l i gen t , an d ( 5) t he dr i ver ’ s neg l i gen cepr oxi m at el y c aus ed t he ac ci den tan d th e p l a i n ti ff’s i n j u ri e s . D e Bl anc v. Jensen , 59 S. W . 3d 373, 375– 76 ( Tex. A pp. — H oust on [ 1stD i st . ] 2001 , no p et . ) ( ci t i ng S ch nei der v. Esperanza Transm i ssi on Co. , 744 S . W . 2d 595, 596 ( Tex. 1987 ) ) . A A M S a nd PAV L a r gue t hatt he su m m ary j udgm entev i den ceco ncl us i vel y ne gat est he f i r stan d s ec ond el em ent s ofne gl i ge nt e ntr us t m ent . Theycl ai m t hatt heydi d noten t r us tt he
com m er ci al m otor v ehi cl e t o a nyon e e xce ptRock y a nd t hatRock y w asnot dr i vi ng at t he t i m e of t he acci dent. Becau se t he sum m ar y j udg m entevi dence d o e s c o n c l u sive l yes tab l i s h t h e s e tw o fac ts, an d b e c a u se n o ev i d e n c e ex i sts t hatA A M S orPA V L e nt r us t ed t he com m er ci al m ot orve hi cl e t o Ram i r ezor C i sn eros or tha tA A M S orPA V L k new ors houl d ha ve kno w n t hatRam i r ezor C i sn erosw er e r ec kl es s ori nco m pet entdr i ver s, t he t r i al co urtdi d noter rby g ra n ti n g s u m m a ry j u d g m e n t o n A p p e l l a n t’sn e g l i g e n t e n tru s tm e n t c l a i m . S ee, e. g. , Shef

f i eld v. D rake , 2 5 5 S .W .3 d 7 7 9 , 7 8 6 ( T e x . A p p .— E a stl a n d 2 0 0 8 , p e t. den i ed) ( uphol di ng no - evi den ces um m ary j udgm entgr ant ed on ne gl i gen t19

e n tr u stm e n t cl a i m b e c a u se n o ev i d e n c e ex i ste d d e fen d a n t en tr u ste d v e h i c l e to d ri v e r). W e o v e rr u l e A p p e l l a n t’ s e i g h th p o i n t. V II I. C ONC L USI ON H avi ng over r ul ed A ppel l ant ’ s t w el ve poi nt s on appeal , w e af f i r m t he t r i al
c o u rt ’s j u d g m e n t.

SU E W A LKER J U S T I C E PA N EL: CA YC E, C. J. ; LI V I N G STO N an d W A LKER, JJ. DEL I VERE D: Aug us t13, 2009