North American Van Lines, Inc. v. Emmons
50 S.W.3d 103, 2001 WL 726297 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When two corporations integrate their resources and operations to achieve a common business purpose, they may be treated as a single business enterprise, making each liable for the other's negligence. However, this equitable doctrine does not automatically impose joint and several liability for the fault of other, unrelated defendants where a proportionate responsibility statute limits such liability.
Facts:
- Edwin Cartagena was refused a commercial driver's license because he could not meet vision requirements and had failed the written exam twice.
- Lufkin Moving and Storage Company employed Cartagena and owned the moving van he drove.
- The moving van was leased to North American Van Lines, Inc. (NAVL), an interstate carrier, for a shipment on behalf of its subsidiary, North American Van Lines of Texas, Inc. (NaTex), an intrastate carrier.
- NAVL and NaTex had the authority to inspect Lufkin Moving's records to ensure its drivers complied with the law and safety regulations.
- On May 31, 1996, Cartagena, while driving the moving van without the required license, rear-ended a Ford Bronco.
- Charles Emmons, a passenger in the Bronco, was paralyzed from the chest down as a result of the collision.
Procedural Posture:
- Charles Emmons and his daughters sued Edwin Cartagena, Lufkin Moving, NAVL, NaTex, and Ford Motor Company in a Texas trial court.
- Following a trial, the jury found Cartagena, Lufkin Moving, NAVL, and NaTex liable for negligence, but found Ford not liable.
- The jury apportioned causation as follows: Cartagena (5%), Lufkin Moving (20%), NaTex (35%), and NAVL (40%).
- The jury awarded over $10 million in actual damages and assessed punitive damages against NAVL and NaTex for malice.
- The trial court entered a judgment holding all four liable defendants jointly and severally liable for the full amount of actual damages.
- Cartagena, Lufkin Moving, NAVL, and NaTex (appellants) appealed the judgment to the Texas Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do equitable doctrines like 'single business enterprise' or 'joint enterprise' permit a court to hold multiple defendants jointly and severally liable for an entire damages award when the state's proportionate responsibility statute otherwise prohibits it because no single defendant was found more than 50% responsible?
Opinions:
Majority - Gaultney, Justice
No, these doctrines do not automatically create joint and several liability for the entire award in contravention of the proportionate responsibility statute; however, the 'single business enterprise' doctrine can make two related corporate entities liable for each other's allocated share of fault. The court found that because no defendant was assessed more than 50% of the fault, the proportionate responsibility statute prevents imposing joint and several liability for the entire judgment. The court rejected the plaintiffs' other theories for joint liability, finding no evidence for a 'joint enterprise' (due to lack of equal control) and holding that a 'conspiracy to be negligent' is not a valid legal claim, as conspiracy requires specific intent. While the evidence was insufficient to pierce the corporate veil under an 'alter ego' theory, it was sufficient to find NAVL and NaTex operated as a 'single business enterprise,' making them liable for each other's share of negligence (a combined 75%). The court also reversed the punitive damages award, finding the defendants' conduct was simple negligence, not malice, as there was no clear and convincing evidence of conscious indifference to an extreme degree of risk.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Burgess, Justice
No, but the punitive damages should have been upheld. The justice largely agreed with the majority's reasoning on liability and apportionment but dissented strongly on the issue of punitive damages. The dissenting opinion argues that allowing a driver who was blind in one eye and had failed the licensing exam to operate a large commercial truck at highway speeds constitutes an extreme degree of risk. This conduct, combined with evidence that NAVL was aware of problems with unqualified drivers, was sufficient to support the jury's finding of malice and the corresponding award of punitive damages.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the interplay between equitable veil-piercing doctrines and modern proportionate responsibility statutes. It establishes that while a theory like 'single business enterprise' can fuse the liability of related corporate defendants, it does not create a blanket exception to statutory schemes that abolish broad joint and several liability. The ruling prevents plaintiffs from using such doctrines to hold defendants liable for the shares of unrelated tortfeasors when they don't meet the statutory threshold (e.g., >50% fault). Furthermore, the case reinforces the high evidentiary bar for punitive damages, requiring clear proof of both an objective 'extreme risk' and a defendant's 'subjective awareness' of that risk, beyond mere carelessness or corporate mismanagement.
