Delia Pagayon, Michelle Fulton, Alfredo G. Pagayon, Michael G. Pagayon, and the Estate of Alfredo M. Pagayon v. Exxon Mobil Corporation

Summary

Justice Boyd concurred in the judgment but declined to join the Court’s opinion because it unnecessarily rejected section 317 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts and provided insufficient guidance concerning an employer’s duty to control an employee acting outside the scope of employment. The concurrence concluded that Exxon owed no duty under either section 317 or Texas’s general duty-balancing test because Exxon neither knew nor should have known of a need to intervene.

Holdings

1. Under the facts presented, Exxon had no duty to control its employee and prevent the employee from harming a third party.
2. It was unnecessary to decide whether Texas should adopt or reject section 317 because Exxon owed no duty under either section 317 or the general Texas balancing test.

Questions Presented

1. Whether an employer owes a duty to control an employee acting outside the scope of employment to prevent harm to a third party under the circumstances presented.
2. Whether the Supreme Court of Texas should reject or adopt section 317 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts as a rule governing an employer's duty to control an employee.

Disposition

other