Roger Landry, Kenneth Porter and Q.A. Services, L.L.C. v. Philip Currie and Charlotte Currie

Summary

The Texas Court of Appeals considered challenges arising from a motor-vehicle-accident judgment involving negligent entrustment, respondeat superior, scope of employment, and damages. The court held that the evidence supported the negligent-entrustment finding against Porter and the finding that Landry was acting within the scope of his employment, but that the trial court improperly submitted a general negligence theory against Q.A. without the required instructions for negligent hiring, supervision, or retention. The court modified the judgment and affirmed it as modified.

Holdings

1. The evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support the jury's finding that Porter negligently entrusted his vehicle to Landry.
2. A general-negligence question, without the additional proof requirements for negligent hiring, supervision, training, or retention, cannot support recovery on those theories.
3. Legally and factually sufficient evidence supported the finding that Landry was acting within the course and scope of his employment when the collision occurred.
4. Although the general-negligence submission against Q.A. could not support direct liability on negligent hiring, supervision, training, or retention, the judgment against Q.A. could stand on the separate respondeat-superior finding. Q.A. was therefore liable for Landry's 30% share, not the jury's separately assigned 50% share.
5. The evidence was factually sufficient to support the remitted noneconomic damages awarded to Charlotte and the noneconomic damages awarded to Philip; the challenge to exemplary damages therefore failed.

Questions Presented

1. Whether legally and factually sufficient evidence supported Porter's negligent-entrustment finding.
2. Whether the trial court improperly submitted a general-negligence theory against Q.A. instead of separately submitting the Curries' negligent hiring, supervision, training, and retention theories.
3. Whether legally and factually sufficient evidence supported the finding that Landry was acting within the course and scope of his employment with Q.A.
4. Whether legally and factually sufficient evidence supported the negligence finding against Q.A.
5. Whether the entire judgment had to be reversed and remanded if the jury submission or Q.A. findings were erroneous.
6. Whether legally and factually sufficient evidence supported the remitted noneconomic damages awarded to the Curries.
7. Whether the exemplary-damages award had to be reversed because of an alleged insufficiency in the noneconomic damages.

Disposition

other