Court Opinion

ID: 9769747
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 15:01:34.904678+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:07.708561
License: Public Domain

QUINN, Justice,
concurring and dissenting.
Because the trial court erred in denying the appellants opportunity to prove simple negligence vis-a-vis the hiring of and en-trustment of a vehicle to Joseph V. Thomas, I believe those choses-in-action must be remanded. This would not be so, however, if New Prime, Inc. had opted not to contest its liability under those claims. In the latter scenario, I would remand only the question of gross negligence, that is, the recovery of punitive damages. Tex. R. App. P. 81(b). But, since New Prime, Inc. has made no such concession, remand of both the negligence and punitive damages issues is appropriate.
As to the negligence of Thomas and its imputation to New Prime, Inc. (his employer), I would remand solely the question of gross negligence, that is, recovery of punitive damages. This is so because New Prime, Inc. does not contest the jury’s finding that held Thomas negligent and New Prime, Inc. vicariously liable for that negligence.1 And, since the matter of punitive damages is separable from the matter of liability upon the underlying cause of action, as implicitly recognized by the Supreme Court in Transportation Ins. Co. v. Moriel, 879 S.W.2d 10 (Tex.1994)(requiring a bifurcated trial on the issues of negligence and punitive damages), Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure would permit remand of the punitive damage question alone. See Redman Homes, Inc. v. Ivy, 920 S.W.2d 664, 669 (Tex.1996)(holding that because the Ivys “conceded at oral submission that liability is contested and the damages are unliquidated,” remand of the entire proceeding was required).
In all other things, I concur in the majority opinion.

. New Prime, Inc. represents that "[i]t is simply unnecessary to retry the issue of Thomas’ negligence and the actual damages sustained by Appellants because these findings are supported by the evidence and do not need to be retried." (Emphasis added). I read this to be an admission that the fact of Thomas' liability and New Prime's vicarious liability for same is no longer contested.