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

## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOFTEXAS FORT WORTH
NO. 2 - 0 8 - 1 7 3 - CV
T R I P L E R AU T O S AL E S AP P E L L ANT V . FO RT W O RTH TRA N SPO RTA TI O N A PPELL EE AU THO RI TY

----- ----- -- FR O M CO UN TY CO URT AT L AW NO . 3 OF TARRA NT CO UN TY

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

### M E M ORANDU M OP I NI ON 1

----- ----- -- A ppe l l ee FortW ort h Tr ans port at i o n A u thor i t y ( FW TA ) s ued A ppe l l ant Tri pl e R A ut o S al es ( Tri pl e R) on a t heor y ofnegl i g e ntent r ust m entofan aut om obi l e. Tr i pl e R f ai l ed t o t i m el y r es pond t o r equ es tf orad m i ss i ons pr opo und ed by FW TA , and consequ ent l y, t he adm i ssi ons w e re deem ed
a d m i tte d . S ee T e x. R. Ci v. P. 198. 2( c) ( “I fa r es pons e [ t o a r equ es tf or2 ... Tr i pl e R f i l ed a sh ort , t hr ee - par agr aph r es pons e t o FW TA ’ s m ot i on f or

sum m ar y j udg m entand at t a c h e d tw o docu m ent s. O ne pur por t s t o be an a f f id a v it b u t is n o t s ig n e d b y a n y o n e , a n d t h e o t h e r is a c o p y o ft h e u n t im e ly a n s w e re d a n d fi l e d re q u e s t fo r a d m i s s i o n s . 2 adm i ss i ons ] i s nott i m el y s er ved , t he r equ es ti s con si der ed adm i t t ed w i t houtt he
n e c e s s i tyo f a c o u rt o rd e r.” ). T ri p l e R d i d n o t s e e ka n yre l i e f i n th e tri a l c o u rt fro m th e d e e m e d a d m i s s i o n s . F W T A s u b s e q u e n tl yfi l e d a m o ti o n fo r s u m m a ry j udgm entr el yi ng s ol el y on t he dee m ed adm i ss i ons . Tr i pl e R di d n o t f i l e a ny contr over t i n g sum m ar y j udg m entevi dence. 2Tr i pl e R di d notap pea ratt he
s u m m a ry j u d g m e n t h e a ri n g . A fte r th e h e a ri n g , th e tri a l c o u rt g ra n te d F W T A ’s
m ot i on f ors um m a r y j ud gm e nta nd e nt e r e d a f i nal j u d g m e nta w a r di ng F W TA
m oney d a ma g e s i n t h e a mo u n t a d mi t t e d i n t h e d e e me d a d mi s s i o n s . T r i pl e R p e r f e c t e d t h is a p p e a l. I n a s i ngl e i ss ue, Tr i pl e R con t end s t hat i tca nnotbe l i abl e f orne gl i gen t ent r ust m entofan aut om obi l e because no evi dence w as pr esent ed pr ovi ng t hat i tow ned or had a r i ghtt o c ont r ol t hatau t om obi l e. Tr i pl e R a dm i t t ed, vi a t he dee m ed a d m i ss i ons , t he f ol l ow i ng: ( 1) t hatTr i pl e R “ ow ned , pos se ss ed or c on t r ol l e d” t he v e hi c l e p r i or t o Ja nu a r y 2, 2006; ( 2) t ha to n Ja nu a r y 2, 2006 , Tri pl e R “sol d and del i ver ed possessi on” oft he vehi cl e t o a M r . D avi s; ( 3) t hat M r . D avi s subsequent l y col l i ded w i t h t he back end of FW TA ’ s vehi cl e; ( 4) t hat t h e a c c id e n t“ w o u ld n o th a v e o c c u r r e d h a d T r ip le R . . . n o tn e g lig e n t ly3

ent r us t ed and s ol d t he veh i cl e” t o M r . D avi s; a nd ( 5) t hatt he neg l i gen ce of Tri pl e R “w as t he di r ect and pr oxi m at e cause oft he acci dent. ” S ee Tex. R. Ci v. P . 1 9 8 .2 (c ). A l th o u g h d e e m e d a d m i s s i o n s o fte n a re s u fficie n t e v i d e n c e to s u p p o rt
sum m ar y j udg m ent , w hen t hey cr eat e f acti ssues r at hert han r esol ve t hem , t hey
c a n n o t b e th e b a s i s fo r s u m m a ryj u d g m e n t. See CEBI Metal San ayi Ve Ticaret A .S . v. G a rcia , 108 S. W . 3d 464, 466 ( Te x. App.

— Hous t on [ 14t h Di s t . ] 2003 , n o p e t.); s e e a l

s o L ukev. Un ifun d

C CRPa rtn ers , No. 02- 06- 00444

- CV , 2007 W L2 4 6 0 3 2 7 , a t * 4

– 5 (T e x . A p p .— F o rt W o rth 2 0 0 7 , n o p e t.) (m e m . o p .) (o b s e rv i n g d i l e m m a p re s e n te d b yc o n fl i c ti n g a d m i s s i o n s ); Prof itl ive P’ s h i p v. S ur ber, 248 S . W . 3d 259, 261 ( Tex. A pp. — Fort W ort h 2007, no p et . ) ( r equ i r i ng
r eve r sa l ofs um m ar y j udgm e n tw hen ap pel l ee ’ s ow n s um m ar y j udgm ent evi den ce r ai se d m at er i al i ss ue off ac t ) . W e c ann otpi ckan d c hoos e a m ong c o n t r o v e rt e d f a c t s in a s u m m a r yju d g m e n tre c o r d , n o rc a n a lit ig a n ta v o id
c o n f lic t s c r e a t e d b yd e e m e d a d m is s io n s o fo p p o s it e f a c t s b yre ly in g o n o n ly
s o m e o f th e d e e m e d a d m i s s i o n s . Ga rcia , 10 8 S . W . 3d at46 6 ( hol di ng t hat deem ed adm i ssi ons, w hi ch esta b li shed ever y pr opo si t i on and i t s opposi t e as
w e l l , c re a te d fa c t i s s u e s ). H er e, t h e d e e me d a d mi s s i o n s e s t a b l i s h b ot h t hatTr i pl e R so l d and del i ver ed possessi on of t he vehi cl e t o M r . D avi s pr i or t o t he acci dent and t hat4

T ri p l e R n e g l i g e n tl yen tr u ste d th e v e h i c l e to h i m . T o e sta b l i sh T ri p l e R ’s l i a b i l i ty und ert he t heor y ofnegl i gent ent r ust m ent , FW TA had t o s h o w th atTr i pl e R
o w n e d the v e h i c l e , th a t i t e n tr u ste d th e v e h i c l e to a n u n l i c e n se d , i n c o m p e ten t,
or r ec kl es s dr i ver t hat Tr i pl e R kne w or sh oul d hav e kno w n t o b e u nl i ce ns ed, th a t th e d ri v e r w a s n e g l i g e n t o n th e o c c a s i o n i n q u e s ti o n , a n d th a t th e d ri v e r’s
n e g l i g e n c e p rox i m a tel yca u se d the ac c i d e n t. See D e Bl anc v. Jensen , 59 S. W . 3d 373 , 375– 76 ( Tex. A pp. — H ous t on [ 1stD i st . ] 2001 , no p et . ) ( ci t i ng Schnei der v. Esper

anza Tr ansm i ssi on Co. , 7 4 4 S .W .2 d 5 9 5 , 5 9 6 (T e x . 1 9 8 7 )). A n o n o w n e r of a v e h i c l e m a yb e h e l d l i a b l e for n e g l i g e n t en tr u stm e n t of a
v e h i c l e i f th e n o n o w n e r h a s th e ri g h t to c o n tro l th e v e h i c l e . Mor r i sv. J TM Mater i al s, I nc. , 78 S. W . 3d 28, 52 ( Tex. A pp. — Fort W ort h 200 2, no pe t . ) . But Tex as court s have r ef used t o expand negl i gent ent r ust m entl i abi l i t y t o sel l er s. See Nat ’

l Conveni

enc e Stores, I

nc. v. T. T. Bar

ge Cle a n i

ng Co. , 883 S. W . 2d 6 8 4 , 6 8 5 , 6 8 7 (T e x . A p p .— D a l l a s 1 9 9 4 , w ri t d e n i e d ); Sa l i n a s v. G en . Mo to rs Cor p. , 8 5 7 S .W .2 d 9 4 4 , 9 4 8 (T e x . A p p .— H o u s to n [1 s t D i s t.] 1 9 9 3 , n o w ri t); Rush v. Sm ither

m an , 2 9 4 S .W .2 d 8 7 3 , 8 7 5 (T e x . C iv . A p p .— S a n A n t o n io 195 6, w r i t r ef ’ d) . The r at i ona l e b ehi nd t hi s r ul e i s t hata se l l er , unl i ke a bai l or i n a b a i l m e n t, l a c k s th e a b i l i ty to c o n tro l a c h a tte l o n c e h e s e l l s i t. Rush , 294 S .W .2 d at 8 7 6

– 7 7 ( “A b a i l o r en tr u sts , f o r w h a t h e en tr u sts i s h i s. B u t a
v e n d o r d o e s n o t e n tru s t; h e s e l l s h i s c h a tte l .” ).3 ... FW TA cont ends t hati ts a m e n d ed pet i t i on speci f i cal l y al l eges t hat

“ T r ip le R w a s ‘t h e o w n e r , c o n s ig n e e a n d o r p o s s e s s o r ’ o f t h e v e h ic le . . . a ta ll t im e s re le v a n t t h e r e t o ,” b u tt h e c it e d p o rt io n s o ft h e p e t it io n a s s e rtt h a tT r ip le R w a s “ t he o w ne r , c on s i gn e e a nd o rp os s e s s oro f t he ve hi c l e ” on J a nu a r y 2, 2 0 0 6 a n d th a t “ o n s a i d d a te s a m e w a s s o l d b y ” T ri p l e R to M r. D a v i s . 5 Tr i pl e R’ s con f l i ct i ng de em ed adm i ss i ons ata m i ni m um cr ea t e a f ac ti ss ue reg a rding o w n e rsh i p an d co n tr o l o f t h e v e h i c l e ; th e ad m i ss i o n s e sta b l i sh b o th t h a tT r ip le R s o ld t h e v e h ic le t o M r . D a v is b e f o r e t h e a c c id e n ta n d t h a tT r ip le R n e g lig e n t lye n t r u s t e d t h e v e h ic le t o h im , a n d t h e y d o n o te s t a b lis h t h a tT r ip le R r et ai ned ow ner shi p or contr ol over t he vehi cl e. 3 See i d. Thus , ba se d on t he
con f l i ct i ng na t ur e o ft he dee m ed adm i ss i ons i n t hi s ca se , w e c ann otupho l d t he
sum m ar y j udg m entf orFW TA . W e hol d t hatt he sum m ar y j udg m entevi dence doe s n o t c o n c l us i vel y e st abl i sh asa m at t erofl aw Tr i pl e R’ s l i abi l i t y f or
n e g l i g e n t e n tru s tm e n t. S e eGa rcia , 108 S. W . 3d a t466; Sur ber, 248 S. W . 3d at26 1. C onsequ ent l y, w e sust ai n T r i pl e R’ s sol e i ssue. W e r ever se t he t r i al cour t ’ s j udg m entand r em and t he case f orf urt her p ro c e e d i n g s c o n s i s te n t w i th th i s o p i n i o n .

SU E W A LKER J U S T I C E PA N EL: CA YC E, C. J. ; W A LKER and M C C O Y, JJ. DEL I VERE D: J a nu a r y 22, 2009