### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

ON MOTION F OR REHEARING

NO. 03-0 6 -00 364 -CV

T. C hr ist ophe r Ro bso n , A ppe lla nt

v. Gar ret t Gilbreat h and David Gilbreath, Appellees

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 126 TH JUDI CIAL DISTRICT NO. D-1- GN-04- 0024 74 , HO NORAB LE DARLENE BY RNE , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

O P I N I O N T. Christopher Robson appea ls the trial court’s or d er sanctioning him $10,000 for failure to conduct a r easona ble inquiry

prior to filing a neg lige nt entrustment claim ag ainst appellee David Gilbre ath. Robson contends that the ne g lige n t en t rustment claim was not g roundless and that he conduc ted a r easona ble inquiry

prior to filing the claim. He a lso contends that the trial c ourt
err ed by failing to state the spec ific re asons for the sanc tions in t he orde r and by imposing sanc tions absent e vidence that h e fi l ed the neg lige nt entrustment claim in bad fa ith or for the pur pose of ha ra ssm e nt. We a ff

ir m. Robso nr e p r e s e n te d

p la in ti f f s in a la w s u it a g a in s t a p p e ll e e s D a v id

G il b r e a th

and Gar rett Gilbreath. The lawsui t conce rned a n automobile acc ident that occur red in F ebrua

ry 20042

durin g which a ve hicle drive n by Gar rett Gilbreath struck and killed Elizabeth Dale y , the mother
and wi fe of pla int if

fs
. Pla int if

fs a sse rt e d c la ims a g a ins t G arr e tt G ilb re a th f or ne g lig e nc e and

a g a ins t Gar rett’s father, Da

vid Gilbreath, “ for ne g lige ntly entrusting a larg e vehicle, such as his Chevrole t Suburban, to a sixt een- y ear -old minor [Garre tt] who had little driving experience .”

After the first amended petit ion was filed on November 10, 2004, the par ties ag ree d to postpone taking depositions until the m inor children of the estate of Eli zabeth Daley wer e broug ht into the case and the probate matter s of the estate of Elizabeth Dale y wer e re solved. On De cembe r 3, 20 04 , F re d Co og an, a tto rn e y fo r a pp e lle e s, se nt a le tte r br ie f to Rob so n re qu e sti nghim to d ism iss the neg lige nt entrustment claim ag ainst David Gilbreath beca use it w a s gr o u n dless. Cooga

n attache d a copy of Ga rre tt’s driver’ s license a

nd an af fidavit from Da

vid Gilbreath to t he letter brief. Robson
c on te nd s th a t he inf

or me d Co og an th a t he wo uld c on sid e r n on su iti ngthe ne g lig e nt e nt r u s t m e nt c la im if a pp e lle e s’ de po sit ion

te sti mony

did no t pr ov ide su

pp or t f or the c la im. On Au gu s t 5, 2005, appellee s filed a no- evidenc e motion for par tial summary jud g me nt a

nd a tr a dit ion a l mot ion fo r pa rt ia l su mma

ry jud g me nt on the ne g lig e nt e ntr us tme nt c la im. I n th e tr a dit ion a l mo tio n f or pa rt ia l summa

ry jud g me nt, a

pp e lle e s r e qu e ste d s anc tio ns a g a ins t Robso n “f

or fi lin g a g ro un dle ss c la im a

nd /or fo r f a ili ngto n on su it a

g ro un dle ss c la im a g a ins t De fe nd ant, Da

vid Gi lbr e a th. ” A

h e a r i n g o n the mot ion s f

or pa rt ia l summa

ry jud g me nt w a s o ri g ina lly schedule d for Septembe r 1, 2005. Howe ver, on Aug ust 23, 2005, t h e p ar t i es ag ree d that Cooga n would canc el the summary judgme nt hear ing a

nd that the depositions would be postponed until such time as the probate matters of the estate of Elizabeth Daley wer e re solved.3 The proba te cour t signe d and appr o v e d

a ju d g me nt declar ing he irship and authorizing letters of depende nt a dminist ration in the estate of Eliz abeth Daley on J anuar y 24, 2006. On Marc h 22, 2006, Robson filed a motion f or continuance of the hear ing on appellee s’ no-e vidence motion for pa rtial summary

judgme nt, which was sc heduled f or Mar ch 30, 2006, ar g uing that appellee s had not cooper ated with seve ral re quests for de positions. The co u rt h eld a hearingon the motion for continuance on Marc h 30, 2006, and orde red a continuance of the he aringon the motions for partial summary judgme nt for at lea st 40 da y s f or the spec ific purpose of “tak[i ng ] defendants’ de positions.” Da vid Gi lbr e a th a

nd Ga rr e tt G ilb re a th w e re de po se d o n Apri l 14, 2 00 6. Sho rt ly there afte r, plaintiffs nonsuited their claims ag ainst David Gilbreath. On May 2, 2006, the trial cour

t held a hear ing on appellee s’ motion for sanctions and found “g ood cause for sa nctions beca

use of the failure of Plaintiffs’ counse l [ Robson] to conduct a rea sonable inqui ry prior to filing suit.” I t ordere d Robson to pay

$10,000 to David Gilbreath. On J uly 1 0 , 2 0 0 7 , t h e parties e ntere d into a Rule 11 settlement ag ree ment dismiss ing the plaintiffs’ cla ims ag ainst Ga rr et t Gi lbreath. The trial cour t subsequently

enter ed a ta

ke nothing judgme nt in favor of Gar rett Gilbreath. The only issue in this appeal conc erns the tr ial court’s order sa nctioning Robson $1 0, 00 0 f or fa ilure to c on du c t a

re a so na ble inq uir y pr ior to f ili ngsu it. A tri a l c ourt ’s deci si on to imp os e sanc tio ns unde r T e xas R ule of Civ il Pr oc e dure 13 wi ll n ot b e re ve rs e d o n a pp e a l un le ss an abuse of discre tion is shown. R a n d o lp h v . J a c k s o n W a lk e r L.L.P. , 2 9 S.W .3d 271, 276 (Tex. App.—Houston [14t h Dist.] 2000, pet. denied). A trial cour t abuses its discretion in imposing sanctions only

if it bases its order on an err oneous view of the law or a clea rly err oneous asse ssment of the e vidence
. Monroe v . Grider , 884 S.W .2d 811, 816 (Tex. A pp.—Dallas 1994, writ denied)
.4 Te xas R ule of Civ il Pr oc e dure 13 a uth or ize s a

tr ia l c ourt

to i mpo se sa

nc tio ns a g a ins t an attorney , a represe nted party , or bot h, who fil e a pleading that is either (1) g roundless and br oug ht in bad faith; or (2) g roundless and broug ht for the pur pose of ha

rassment. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 13. On e purp os e of

the ru le is to c he c k a

bu se s in the ple a din g pr oc e ss— that is, to e ns ur e that a t th e tim e the cha lleng ed plea ding w as filed, the litigant’s posit ion was factually g rounded a

nd leg ally tenable. Appleton v. Appl et on , 76 S.W .3d 78, 86 (Tex. App.—Houston 2002 [14t h Dist.] , no pet.). To deter mine whether

rule 13 sanc tions are pr oper, the trial court must ex am i n e t h e fa cts and circ umstances in exis tence at t he ti me t he plea ding w as filed. El k ins v . S tot ts-Br own , 103 S.W .3d 664, 668 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2003, no pe t.).

I n h i s f i r s ti s s u e , R o b s o nc o n t e n d s th a tt h e t r i a l c o u rte r r e d b y g r an t i n g a

p p e l l e e s’ motion for sanctions beca use the claim he filed ag ainst David Gilbreath for neg lige nt entrustment
wa s n ot g ro un dle ss. Groundlessne ss turns on the l eg al m erits of a cla im. Ri v e r O ak s P lac e Cou nc il

o f C o - O w n e r s v . D aly , 1 7 2 S.W .3d 314, 322 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2005, no pet.). To est a bli shne g lig e nt e ntr

us tme nt o f a

n a uto mob ile , a

pla int if f m us t pr ov e the fo llo wi nge le me nts : (1) the ow ner e ntrusted the automobile, (2) to a p er s o n who was a n unlicensed, inc ompetent, or
rec kless driver, ( 3) who the ow ner kne w or should have known was incompetent or re ckless, (4) the driver w as negl i gen t , and (5) the driver ’s neg lige nce pr ox imately cause d the ac cident and the plaintiff’s injuries. De Blanc v. Je nsen , 5 9 S.W .3d 373, 375-76 (Te x . App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, no pet.) (citing Schneide r v. Esperanza Transmission Co. , 744 S.W .2d 595, 596 (Tex. 1987)). An entrustee ’s previous driving rec ord or driving habits may show incompetenc e, re cklessness, or intempera nce. Re v iso re v . W

est , 450 S.W .2d 361, 364 (Tex. Civ. App.—Houston [14t h Dist.] 1970,5

no writ). Equa l or g reater c rede nce m ay be attac hed to the mental or phy sical condition of an entrustee at the time he is loane d an automobile. Id.

I n this case, Robs o n d id not alleg e that Ga rre tt Gilbreath wa s an unlicense d or incompete nt driver or that David Gilbre ath knew or should have known that Garr ett was
an unli c e ns e d o r i nc omp e te nt d ri ve r. Ra th er, he f

ile d th e ne g lig e nt e ntr

us tme nt c la im a g a ins t Da vid Gi lbr e a th o n th e ba sis that D a vid “ ne g lig e ntl y

e ntr us t[e d] a larg e ve hic le , s uc h a s h is Chevrolet Suburban, to a six teen- y ear -old minor [Garrett] who had little driving e x perie nce.” Mere involvement in a collision does not cre ate a n infere nce or conclusion that a driver is inc ompetent or
rec kless. Monroe , 884 S.W .2d at 818. Fur thermore , evidenc e that a dr iver is inexperience d, without
mor e , d oe s not pe rm it an inf e re nc e that the dr ive r la c ke d judg me nt or pe rc e pti on or wa s o the rw ise an incompete nt driver. See Ab ou sh ad id v . W ar d , No. 07-05-00140-CV, 2007 Tex. App. L EXI S 885,
a t *8 -9 (T e x. Ap p. —A ma ri llo F e b. 5, 20 07 , n o pet.) (h old ingthat e vid e nc e of sixte e n- y e a r- old driver’ s in e xp e r ie n c e d o e s n o t p e r mi t i n f e r e n c e th a t s h e la c k e d

ju d g me n t o r

p e r c e p ti o no r

w as otherwise a

n incompetent drive r to support a ne g l i gen t entrustment claim ag ainst the driver ’s pare nts). Prior to filing the f irst amended pe tition, R obson rec eived one set of interr og atories f rom Garre tt G il b r e a th in w h ic h G ar r e tt d is c lo s e d th a t h e w a s “ ta k in g p r e s c r ip ti o n me d ic a ti o n ” at the time of the ac cident. Robson contends that this discovery led him to bel i ev e t h at the pre scription
me dic a tio n ma

y have imp a ir e d Garr e tt’ s dri vin g and that Da vid Gi lbr e a th may have kn ow n o f t

his impairment—fac ts that, if true, would tend t o support a cla im of neg lige nt entrustment. Howeve r, Robson did not allege these fa cts as the ba sis for the neg lige nt entrustment claim. I nstead, he filed the claim on the ba sis that Da v i d Gi lbreath entrusted his larg e vehic le to an inexperienc ed drive r.6

Th is a sse rt e d c la im h a s n o ba sis in law or fa c t. T he re fo re , w e ho ld t hat th e tr ia l c ourt

did no t a bu se its dis c re tio n in de te rm ini ng that the ne g lig e nt e ntr us tme nt c la im a sse rt e d a g a ins t D a vid Gi lbr e a th
wa s g ro un dle ss.

I n h is s e c on d is su e , Ro bs on c on te nd s th a t he c on du c te d a re a so na ble inq uir y pr ior to filing the neg lige nt entrustment claim. Reasona ble inquiry

means the amount of examination that is reasona ble under the circ umstances of

the ca se. Monroe , 884 S.W .2d at 817. Robson contends that he “pur sued all av enues of investigation that were open and r easona ble at the time, including ob ta ini ng the fu ll, inv e sti g a tio n fi le of the Au sti n Pol ic e De pa rtme nt, nume ro us wi tne ss s ta te me nts , the medica l examiners’ repor t and per sonal i n s p ec t i o n of the a ccide nt scene .” Having r eviewe d the record, we conclude that the trial cour t did not abuse its discretion by concludingthat Robson did not conduct a r easona ble inquiry

prior to filing the neglig ent entrustment claim. As di scussed above, at the time Robson filed his first amended petition, he had not uncove red a ny fac ts tending to sho w that G arr e tt G ilb re a th w a s an unli c e ns e d, inc omp e te nt, or re c kle ss d

ri ve r o r t hat D a vid Gilbreath kne w or should ha ve known that Ga

rre tt was an incompe tent or re ckless drive r. The issue of wh e the r G arr e tt w a s ta

kin g pr e sc ri pti on me dic a tio n at the tim e of the a c c ide nt t

hat w ou ld i mpa ir his dr ivi ng(h e wa s no t) wa s no t in ve sti g a te d unti l th e de fe nd ants we re de po se d in Ap ri l 20 06 . T his inq uir y sh ou ld h a ve oc c ur

re d b e fo re Rob so n f

ile d a ne g lig e nt e ntr

us tment c la im a g a ins t D a vid Gilbreath. The trial cour

t did not abuse its discretion in determining that Robson failed to conduc t
a r e a s o n a b l e i n qu i r y.7 I n h is thir d a

nd fo ur th is sues , Ro bs on

c on te nd s th a t th e tr ia l c ourt a bu se d it s discretion by

fa i l i n g t o s tate the spe cific r easons f or the sanc tions in t he orde r and by imposing
sanc tio ns a

bs e nt e vid e nc e that he fi le d th e c la im i n b a d f a ithor fo r t he purp os e of

ha ra ssm e nt. I n impo s in g r

u le 1 3 s an c ti o n s , th e tr ia l c o u rt i s r e qu ir e d to s tate th e p arti cular s of g ood cause justify ing sa nctions in the order
. See Te x R. Civ . P. 13 . F a ilure to com ply wi th this directive is an a

buse of discr etion. Texas-O h i o Gas , Inc. v . Mec om , 28 S.W .3d 129, 135 (Tex. App.—Texarkana

2000, no pet.). In this case, the tr ial co urt did not state the par ticulars of g ood cause for sa

nctions, such as whe ther the ne g lige nt entrus t m en t claim was g roundless and broug ht in bad faith or gr oundless and broug ht for the pur pose of ha

rassment. The order

awa rding
sanc tio ns a g a ins t Ro bs on state s: the Court, afte r consider ing sa id Motion, t he re sponse, the plea dings o n fi l e, the evidenc e, and a

rg uments of counse l, finds good cau s e fo r sanctions because of the failure of Plaintiffs’ counse l [ Robson] to conduct a r easona ble inquiry

prior to filing su it.
Howeve r, bec ause Robson did not o b j ec t t o t h e form of the sanc tions order, he has wa ived any objection to the absence of a bad faith or har assment finding
. See M ecom , 2 8 S. W.3 d at 13 5; Land

v . A T & S Tran sp . Inc. , 947 S.W .2d 665, 667 (Tex. App.—Austin 1997, no writ). Thus, we c onsider whether the rec ord conta ins any evidenc e to support an implied finding that the claim was broug ht i n b ad fa i t h or for

the purpose of

hara ssment. See M

ecom , 2 8 S. W.3 d at 13 6; M c Ca in v. NME Hosps., Inc. , 856 S.W .2d 751, 757 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1993, no wr it).

A par ty acts in bad f

aith when discove ry

puts him on not ice th at his understanding
o f th e fa ct s m ay b e in co rr ec t , an d h e d o es n o tm ak e r ea s o n ab l e i n qu i ry i n t o t h e f ac t s b ef o re fi l i n g a8

pleading
. Monroe , 884 S.W .2d at 819. I mproper motive is an essential element of bad fa ith. Elkins , 103 S.W .3d at 669. B ad fa ith is not simply bad judgme nt or neg lige nce, but means the c onscious doing of a wr ong for dishonest, discriminatory , or malicious purpose. Id. As previously

d i s cu s s ed , R o b s o nas s er t eda gr o u n d l es s claim of neg lige nt entrustment
a g a ins t D a vid G ilb re a th a nd fa ile d to c on du c t a

re a so na ble inq uir y int o th e fa c ts b e fo re fi lin g his first amende d petition. Robson’s contention that Garre tt’s interrog atory answe rs l ed him to believe that there wa s a fa ctual basis for the neg lige nt entrustment claim base d on Gar rett’s use of presc ription medication at the time of the a ccide nt does not suppor t or explain Robson’s filing of the first amende d petition, which alleg ed a c laim of neg lige nt entrustment on wholly differ ent g rounds (i.e., that Da

vid Gilbreath ne g lig e ntl y

e ntrusted a lar g e vehic le to an inexperienc ed drive r). Robson’s failure to make a r easona

ble inquiry

into the fac ts supporting a neg lige nt entrustment claim bef ore filing the claim supports the district court’ s impli ed finding of bad faith. See M onroe , 884 S.W .2d
a t 81 9. A p art

y c ann ot a vo id r ule 13 sa nc tio ns by

c la imi nghe was no t a c tua lly awa re of the fa c ts
makin g his c la im g ro un dle ss wh e n he ha s not ma de re a so na ble inq uir y , nor c an a

pa rt y a vo id r ule 13 sancti o n s b y

c la im in g h e w a s n o t a c ti n g w it h ma li c io u s o r

d is c r im in a to r

y p u r p o s e in b r in g ing the claim. Id. The sanctions imposed by the t rial court are supported by Robson’s failure to makeThe dis s en t b as es its conclusions on the notion that the trial court did not hold an 1 evi d en t i ary

hear ing a

nd did not have bef

ore it any

evidenc e that Robson filed his neg lige nt entrustment claim in bad fa ith. Robson di d not raise the la ck of a n evidentiar

y hear ing a s a point of err or on appe al. The likely rea son Robson did not raise this as a point of error is that a hearing on the mot ion fo r sanc tio ns wa s he ld be fo re the tr ia l c ourt on Ma y 2, 20 06 , a

nd the tr ia l c ourt did consider e vidence. T h e h ea ri ng was re corde d, and the r eporte r’s re cord of the hea ring is in the appellate rec ord. The e vidence consider ed b y an d expressly ref ere nced by

the trial cour

t at the he ari ngwa s th e e vid e nc e a tta c he d to the mot ion fo r sa nc tio ns and

the tr ia l c ourt ’s fi le . Ro bs on did not object to any

of the e vidence attache d to the m o t i o n n o r the trial cour t’s consideration of that evidenc e or the court’s f

ile. I n any

event, we are not at liberty to reve rse a

trial court judg ment for a rea son not r aised in a point of err or unless the e rror is jurisdictional or fundamenta l. See W alling v . M e tc alf e , 863 S.W .2d 56, 58 (Tex. 1993). As for e vidence of ba d fa ith, the rec ord re flec ts that the trial cour

t ha d befor e it sufficie nt evidence for the c ourt to find bad fa ith, both circumstantial and direc t. The circ ums tance s surrounding Robson’s filing a s reve aled in the r ecor d would allow the trial court, in its discretion, to conclude that the filing was made in bad fa ith. 9 a re asonable inquiry

into the fac ts supporting the c laim that he filed. On this re cord, w e ca nnot conclude that the district court a bused its discretion in imposing sanc tions ag ainst Robson. 1 Affir med.

________________________________________________

G. Alan Waldrop, Just ice Be fore J ustices Patterson, Pember ton and Waldrop; Dissenting O pinion by J ustice Patterson Affir med on Motion for Rehea ring Filed: August 1, 2008