Williams v. Steves Industries, Inc.
55 A.L.R. 4th 1087, 699 S.W.2d 570, 29 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 53 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To establish gross negligence in a negligent entrustment case sufficient for punitive damages, a plaintiff must show that the vehicle owner knew or should have known the driver was incompetent or reckless; evidence that the owner entrusted a vehicle to a driver who lacked the proper license, without more, constitutes only ordinary negligence.
Facts:
- Steves Industries employed Robert Robinson, initially to drive a pickup truck.
- A supervisor told Robinson 'to get some driver’s license,' but did not follow up or specify what kind was needed.
- Several months later, Steves Industries assigned Robinson to drive an eight-ton equipment repair truck, which required a commercial operator's license under state law.
- Robinson did not possess the required commercial operator's license to drive the larger truck.
- There was no evidence presented that Robinson had any prior speeding tickets, had caused any prior accidents, or that Steves Industries had any other notice that he was an incompetent or reckless driver.
- On July 30, 1981, a car driven by Renee McCracken Williams ran out of gas and stalled in a center lane of Interstate 35.
- Robinson, driving the Steves Industries truck, collided with the rear of Williams' stalled car.
- The collision injured Renee Williams and resulted in the deaths of her two minor children.
Procedural Posture:
- Renee and Kenneth Williams sued Steves Industries in a Texas trial court for personal injury and wrongful death, alleging both negligence and gross negligence.
- A jury found Steves Industries negligent and grossly negligent, awarding both actual and punitive damages.
- The trial court judge granted a motion to disregard the jury's finding on gross negligence, setting aside the punitive damages award.
- The Williamses, as appellants, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Texas Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision to disregard the gross negligence finding.
- The Williamses, as petitioners, then appealed to the Supreme Court of Texas.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an employer's act of entrusting a commercial vehicle to an employee, who the employer should have known lacked the required commercial license, constitute gross negligence sufficient to support an award of punitive damages without additional evidence that the employee was known to be incompetent or reckless?
Opinions:
Majority - Campbell, Justice
No. An employer's failure to ensure its driver has the proper commercial license, without more evidence of the driver's incompetence or recklessness, does not rise to the level of gross negligence required for punitive damages. Gross negligence is defined as an 'entire want of care which would raise the belief that the act or omission...was the result of a conscious indifference to the right or welfare of the person or persons to be affected by it.' While entrusting a vehicle to an unlicensed driver is negligent, it does not, by itself, demonstrate a conscious indifference to a high degree of risk. To support a finding of gross negligence in an entrustment case, there must be evidence that the driver was in fact incompetent or habitually reckless and that the owner knew or should have known this. Here, there was no evidence of Robinson's prior bad driving record or any other factor to alert Steves Industries that he posed an extreme risk to others.
Dissenting - Ray, Justice
Yes. Entrusting a loaded, twenty-ton truck, an 'inherently dangerous machine,' to a driver known to lack the legally required special commercial license demonstrates a 'heedless and wreckless disregard for the rights of others.' The legislature requires a special license for such vehicles precisely because of the greater danger they pose. By knowingly ignoring this critical safety requirement, Steves Industries demonstrated a conscious indifference to the safety of the public. This act, given the dangerous nature of the vehicle, is sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding of gross negligence.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the standard for gross negligence in Texas negligent entrustment cases, raising the bar for plaintiffs seeking punitive damages. The court solidified the rule that merely failing to verify a driver's license, an act of ordinary negligence, is insufficient to prove the 'conscious indifference' required for gross negligence. This precedent requires future plaintiffs to produce additional evidence showing the owner's knowledge of the driver's actual incompetence or history of recklessness, thereby protecting employers from punitive damages based solely on administrative oversights.
