Hall v. Domino's Pizza, Inc.

Citations: 410 S.W.3d 925; 2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 12562; 2013 WL 5566216Docket: No. 08-12-00208-CV

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; October 9, 2013; Texas; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Lisa D. Hall appeals a trial court's summary judgment favoring several Appellees, including Domino's Pizza and Mark of Excellence Pizza Company, in a personal injury case stemming from a collision involving John Wuest, a minor and employee of the Appellees. Hall contends that the Appellees are liable for Wuest's off-duty, off-premises tort due to their negligence in enforcing policies that required him to drive to work during inclement weather. Hall asserts that the Appellees knew or should have known about Wuest's inexperience as a driver. The Appellees moved for summary judgment, arguing they owed no legal duty to control Wuest's conduct. The trial court granted their motion without specifying reasons, leading Hall to file a motion for a new trial, which was denied.

Hall's appeal focuses on whether the Appellees had a legal duty under relevant case law to control Wuest's actions. The court reviews the summary judgment de novo, indicating that if the trial court’s order can be sustained under no-evidence or traditional grounds, it will be affirmed. Hall's claims hinge on her assertion that genuine issues of material fact exist regarding the Appellees' duty and the foreseeability of risk; however, the court finds that the Appellees did not have the legal duty Hall claims.

To establish tort liability, a plaintiff must prove the existence and breach of a duty owed by the defendant. Generally, an employer is only liable for an employee’s off-duty torts if they occur on the employer's premises or involve the employer's property. However, an exception exists where an employer has a duty to protect third parties from an incapacitated employee’s off-duty tort if the employer exercises affirmative control over that employee. In a precedent case, liability was imposed when an employer required an employee to consume alcohol while working, and the employer was aware of the employee's intoxication. Conversely, in this case, the plaintiff, Hall, fails to demonstrate that the Appellees were liable under this exception, as there is no evidence that the employee, Wuest, was incapacitated. Wuest was a licensed driver with three months of experience and had not previously been involved in accidents. His testimony indicated he was driving cautiously on the day of the incident. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the Appellees knew of Wuest’s alleged incapacity or that they exercised control over him. Summary judgment is appropriate if the plaintiff cannot establish the existence or breach of a duty as a matter of law.

Wuest's testimony indicated he assumed his employer knew he drove to work based on his lunch break departures, yet he did not explicitly inform them of his commuting method. This assumption is deemed insufficient to prove that Appellees were aware of his driving or his capability to do so. Citing King Ranch, Inc. v. Chapman, the court emphasized that minimal evidence fails to substantiate a claim. Furthermore, there is no indication that Appellees had the authority to control Wuest's commuting actions, leading to the conclusion that they did not owe a legal duty to manage his conduct. The court referenced Ginther, where a similar liability was denied, reinforcing that Appellees had no obligation to ensure the reliability of their drivers' vehicles or insurance.

Hall's appeal on evidentiary rulings was also rejected. The court reviewed the trial court's evidence admission under an abuse of discretion standard, asserting that Hall did not demonstrate harm from the admitted evidence, specifically an affidavit from Domino’s franchise services director. Hall failed to argue how the affidavit was pivotal to a key issue in the case or how its exclusion would have affected the outcome. Ultimately, Hall did not meet her burden in challenging the evidentiary ruling, nor did she establish the Appellees' duty to control Wuest's behavior. Consequently, the court upheld the summary judgment in favor of Appellees, overruling Hall's initial and subsequent issues.

Hall failed to demonstrate the required harm needed to prove an abuse of discretion by the trial court in admitting the affidavit, resulting in her second issue being overruled. All issues raised by Hall have been overruled, leading to the affirmation of the trial court's judgment. Hall dismissed her claims against Wuest and his mother after settling with them. Of the twenty-seven issues presented, twenty-six were categorized as challenges to the summary judgment, with twenty-three arguing that the Appellees had control over Wuest and that Dennis L. Mayhall was personally liable under Section 171.255 of the Texas Tax Code for operating under an assumed name after the corporation's charter was forfeited. Two issues addressed the duty related to summary judgment, while the last questioned the existence of factual issues. However, these sub-issues were deemed irrelevant as they depended on the existence of a legal duty to control Wuest, which the court concluded did not exist.