Texas Supreme Court hears arguments over whether shippers owe duty for carrier drivers' wrecks

The Supreme Court of Texas on Monday heard oral argument in case no. 25317, in which a motor‑vehicle plaintiff seeks to hold Home Depot liable for injuries and a death caused when a carrier’s driver ran a red light. Relator’s counsel asked the court to dismiss the shipper from the case at the Rule 91A pleading stage, arguing the common law does not impose duty on a shipper that hires a federally licensed carrier.

Relator’s counsel told the court that the central legal question is “what duty is owed by someone who hires an independent contractor” and urged a narrow rule for licensed, nationally regulated motor carriers because federal law (the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Act and related regulations) places driver‑qualification obligations on the motor carrier rather than on the shipper. He argued the pleadings show Werner (the carrier named in the petition) and its employee were defendants and that Werner admitted the employee acted in the course and scope of employment, so the shipper’s continued presence in the suit is unnecessary on the record before the court.

Counsel for the real parties in interest responded that the petition contains factual allegations (referenced in the mandamus record) that Home Depot knew or recklessly disregarded the carrier’s safety record. He pointed the court to allegations that the carrier had hundreds of ‘‘reportable’’ incidents and asserted the petition alleges a dedicated relationship — including an embedded Home Depot representative at the carrier — and pleads that the shipper knew of carrier‑wide safety problems. That counsel urged the court to treat the filing as a pleading‑stage dispute and decline to resolve fact questions best decided after discovery.

Justices pressed both sides for limiting principles. Several asked whether the court’s rule, if broadly stated, would apply to ordinary consumers who hand a package to FedEx or UPS, or to a local business that relies on a single driver. Relator’s counsel said those scenarios differ because national carriers are licensed and subject to DOT oversight, and licensing is a readily verifiable fact. Real‑parties’ counsel said a dedicated, long‑term relationship and allegations of actual or constructive knowledge of systemic carrier failures distinguish large shippers from individual customers.

The argument included debate about precedent (United Rentals/United Reynolds and other cases the parties invoked), the Restatement §411 negligent‑selection/entrustment principles, and whether a recognition of liability on these pleadings would have broad social or commercial consequences. Relator argued that the Philips duty factors point against imposing a duty because the causal link between hiring a carrier and an individual driver running a red light is attenuated; real parties emphasized that allegations of willful disregard and a sustained pattern of accidents could, if proven, justify a duty and permit recovery.

No decision was announced. The case was submitted after argument and will be resolved by the court in a written opinion. The pleadings and the mandamus record — not evidence developed in discovery — will inform the court’s choice whether to grant relief at the Rule 91A stage or leave factual development to the trial court.

Background and next steps: The petition challenges Home Depot’s continued presence in a wrongful‑death/personal‑injury suit after the carrier and its driver admitted vicarious liability; the parties and the court debated whether the pleadings’ allegations alleging widespread carrier incidents and a dedicated shipper‑carrier relationship suffice to create a duty on the shipper or whether those questions require summary judgment or trial evidence. The court’s forthcoming opinion will clarify whether and how federal motor‑carrier regulation limits or accommodates common‑law negligent‑selection or negligent‑retention claims against shippers.