## IN THE SUPREME COURT O F TEX AS

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 N O . 16-0134

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 

### A L L W A Y S 

### A U T O 

### G R O U P 

### , L T D 

### . D 

### / B 

### / A 

### A T A S C O S A 

### C H R Y S L E R 

### D O D G E 

### J E E P 

### R A M 

### , P E T IT IO N E R 

### ,

v . 

### S T E V E N 

### W A L T E R S 

### , R E S P O N D E N T

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

O N P E T I T I O N F O R R E V I E W F R O M T H E C O U R T O F A P P E A L S F O R T H E T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X A S

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
P ER CURIAM
Petitioner auto deale r, Allway s Auto Group, L td. d/b/a Atascosa Chry sler Dodg e J eep Ram, provided Wil liam J o h n He y den a loaner vehicle. Heyden had been drinking at the time. Eig hteen day s later, Heyden drove the loaner into a truck driven by responde nt Steven Walters. Heyden was leg ally intox icated. Walters sued Allway s for ne g lige nt entrustment. Allway s moved for summary judgme n t o n the g round that “an acc ident that occur s eig hteen day s afte r entrustment is too attenuate d to constitute leg al cause” (initial caps omit ted). The trial court gra nted t he mot ion, and Walters appea led. The court of appea ls reve rsed and rema nded, concluding that fac t issues reg arding proxi mate cause rema ined. 484 S.W .3d 219, 226–28 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2016). We ag ree with the trial co urt and acc ording ly reve rse the judgme nt of the court of appea ls and reinstate summar

y judgme nt for Allway s.On Aug ust 21, 2012, Heyden, a thirty -y ear -old o i l -f i el d worke r, purcha sed a 2008 Dodg e Caliber from Al l wa y s in Pleasanton, Texas, a small town some thirty -five miles south of San Antonio in the hear

t of the Eag le For d Shale play

. Hey den did not have a valid driver’ s license in his possession but persua ded the salesman to acc ept a photocopy he had made of a prior I llinois license. Two day s later, the ve hicle broke down, and Heyden ca lled Allway s to tow it t o the dea lership for repa irs. Meanw hile, he drank a six -pac k of beer

. Heyden testified he was drunk when he arr ived at Allway s, but the salesman testified that Heyden did not seem to be impaired in any way . Heyden produce d proof of insurance , and the salesman g ave Hey den a loaner , a 2012 Dodg e Ram 1500 pickup, to use while his Caliber wa s beingrepa ired. Repairs wer e delay ed. On September 10, afte r Hey den had been drivin g t h e loaner for eig hteen day s, he lost his job, boug ht a fifth of whiskey and a twelve- pack of beer , and drank both while driving around aimlessly

. At 1:08 p.m., Heyden was driving acr oss a two-lane bridg e over the Fr io River in Three Rivers, Texas, a small town some forty miles southeast of Pleasanton, when he

crosse d the middle line and struck another Dodg e Ram 1500 pickup, a 1998 model, driven by Walters, a forty -nine-year -old ranc h hand. Hey den’ s blood-alcohol level was at least .147, near ly twice the leg al limit

. Heyden told the investigating office r that he had been fumbling with his phone wh en h e drove into the other lane, but in a deposition two y ear s later, he testified that h e h ad

2intended to commit suicide by driving off the bridg e. He was convicted of intox ication assault and 1 driving while intox icated and sente nced to ten year s’ imprisonment. 2 Heyden is an admitted alcoholic with a hist o ry o f d ri nking and driving

. He was cited for driving while intox icated in Oc tober 2009 in I llinois , wher e he w as living at the time; in Fe bruar y 2012 in Texas, wher e he had m o v ed ; an d o n Aug ust 5, 2012, afte r losing control of his car and driving into a ditch. Be cause of the Aug ust 5 acc ident, Heyden boug ht the Caliber six teen day s later. He h ad s u rre ndere d his I llinois driver’ s license in J une 2012 when he was iss ued a Texas license, but he had kept a photocopy of the I llinois license. He had surre ndere d his Texas license on Aug ust 5 when he ref

used a breathaly

zer. But Allway s did not attempt to investigate or inquire into Heyden’s criminal re cord a

nd was not aw are of any

of his past offe nses. “F or entrustment to be a proxi mate cause, t h e d efe ndant entrustor should be shown to be

rea sonably able to anticipate that an inj ury would result as a natural and p ro b ab l e consequenc e of the entrustment.” Schneide r v. Esperanza Transmission Co. , 744 S.W .2d 595, 596 (Tex. 1987). I f Heyden wer e visibly intox icated when he g ot the loaner , Allway s could rea sonably have anticipated he might have a wre ck befor e he sobere d up. But Allway s could not have fore s ee n t h at He y den would g et drunk eig hteen day s later (aft er re p ai rs wer e delayed and he lost his job) and drive his vehicle into Walters’ ve hicle.

I n t o x i c a t i o n a s s a u l t i s a t h i r d

- d e g r e e f e l o n y . T E X . P E N A L C O D E § 4 9
. 0 7 ( c )

. 1
H e y d e n h a d b e e n c o n v i c t e d t w i c e b e f o r e f o r d r i v i n g w h i l e i n t o x i c a t e d

. D r i v i n g w h i l e i n t o x i c a t e d a f t e r t w o 2 p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n s f

o r t h a t o f

f e n s e i s a t h i r d

- d e g r e e f e l o n y . T E X . P E N A L C O D E § § 4 9
. 0 4 ( b ) , 4 9
. 0 9 ( b ) ( 2 )

. 3Acc ording ly , Allway s has established that its providing Heyden a loaner was not a proxi mate

cause of his injuring Walters eig hteen day s later. Even if Heyden wer e visibly intox icated when he obtained the loaner , driving into Walters eig hteen day s later was not a natural and pro b able result of that intox ication. We have repe atedly explained that “the connec tion betwee n the defe ndant and the plaintiff’s injuries simply may be too attenuate d to constitute l ega l cause ,” which “is not established if the defe ndant’s conduct or product does no more than furnish the condition that makes the plaintiff’s injury possible.” Union Pump Co. v. Allbritt on , 898 S.W .2d 773, 776 (Tex. 1995); see also IHS Cedars Treatment Ctr. of DeSoto, Tex., Inc. v. Mason , 143 S.W .3d 794, 800 (Tex. 2004); Lear Siegler, Inc. v. Pe rez , 819 S.W .2d 470, 472 (Tex. 1991); Bell v. C ampbell , 434 S.W .2d 117, 122 (Tex. 1968). The trial court corr ectly g rante d Allway s’ motion for summary judgme nt. We there fore g rant Allway s’ petition for re view and, w ithout hea ring oral a

rgument, T E X . R. A P P . P. 59.1, reve rse the judgme nt of the cour

t of appe als and re instate that of the tria l court.

OP INION DELIVERED : September 29, 2017

4