Committee adopts substitute to standardize admission‑rule treatment in commercial motor‑vehicle trials
Loading...
Summary
The committee substitute to SB 39 would repeal statutory exceptions to the admission rule in commercial motor‑vehicle collision lawsuits so the rule aligns with longstanding case law; sponsors said the change clarifies that the admission rule applies in the first phase of trials but does not bar separate claims such as negligent repair.
Senator Burble explained the committee substitute for Senate Bill 39 to the Transportation Committee as a measure to make commercial motor‑vehicle collision trials more uniform by repealing admission‑rule exceptions added in a previous legislative session. The sponsor said the admission rule — long used in Texas case law since at least 1961 — prevents duplicative claims when an employer admits that an employee was acting in the course and scope of employment; under that rule, evidence should focus on fault in the collision rather than relitigating scope‑of‑employment issues.
The committee substitute clarifies that SB 39 does not prevent plaintiffs from pursuing causes of action that are distinct from an employee’s conduct — for example negligent maintenance, negligent loading or negligent repair — during the first phase of a trial. If an employer elects not to use the admission rule, the substitute preserves the ability to admit all negligent‑entrustment evidence across both phases of a bifurcated trial, and nothing in the bill alters the availability of punitive damages.
After debate, the committee adopted the committee substitute and then voted on the recommendation that the bill as amended be reported to the full Senate. The roll call as read into the record was: Nichols — Aye; West — No; Bettencourt — Aye; Hagenboo — Aye; Hinojosa — Aye; Johnson — No; King — Aye; Miles — Aye; Perry — Aye. The clerk announced "6 ayes, 3 nays," and the committee substitute was reported favorably to the full Senate.
