## Facts

- The Fort Worth Transportation Authority contracted with VPSI, Inc. to operate and maintain a fleet of vanpool vehicles owned by VPSI.
- The vanpool program used a “Three-Party Volunteer Driver Agreement” under which van drivers were designated as volunteers or independent contractors, not employees or agents of VPSI.
- Homer Bell (Linda Bell’s husband) was an authorized driver under the agreement, subject to qualifications and approval requirements, and agreed to comply with laws and certain vehicle-use and maintenance obligations.
- The agreement allowed limited personal use of the van (subject to mileage limits), with the driver responsible for fuel during personal use.
- In December 1999, Homer drove the van on a Saturday with Linda as a passenger; the trip included a routine maintenance stop and later personal errands.
- After the maintenance stop and while engaged in personal errands, the van hydroplaned and crashed, injuring Linda.
- Linda sued VPSI and the Transportation Authority seeking to impose vicarious liability for Homer’s alleged negligent driving; she later nonsuited Homer.

## Issues

1. Whether VPSI or the Transportation Authority could be vicariously liable under respondeat superior by showing Homer was an employee or agent acting within the course and scope of that relationship when the crash occurred.
2. Whether the driver agreement gave VPSI or the Transportation Authority a sufficient contractual right of control over the operative details of Homer’s driving to support vicarious liability despite the agreement’s independent-contractor/volunteer terms.
3. Whether the evidence established a joint enterprise among Homer, VPSI, and/or the Transportation Authority permitting imputation of Homer’s negligence.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the trial court’s traditional summary judgment for VPSI and the Transportation Authority on all vicarious-liability theories.
- The court held Homer was not acting within the course and scope of any employment or agency relationship at the time of the crash because the accident occurred during personal errands after the maintenance task was completed.
- The court held the driver agreement did not confer the type of control over the operative details of driving required for retained-control liability; maintenance obligations, general safety provisions, and termination rights were insufficient.
- The court held the evidence did not establish joint enterprise because the required shared pecuniary interest and equal right of control were not shown with respect to the trip during which the accident occurred.

## Legal Principles

- Vicarious liability under respondeat superior generally requires an employee or agent relationship and conduct within the course and scope of that relationship.
- Whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor turns primarily on the alleged principal’s right to control the means and methods of performance; contractual labels are relevant but not conclusive.
- Retained-control liability requires a contractual right to control the operative details of the work that relate to the injury; general contractual conditions, safety compliance language, and termination rights typically do not establish the necessary control.
- A presumption that a driver acts in the course and scope when an employer owns the vehicle and an employee drives is rebuttable; undisputed evidence of personal use can defeat course-and-scope.
- Joint enterprise requires, among other elements, a community of pecuniary interest and an equal right of control; coordination in a program or contract does not alone satisfy these elements.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed summary judgment because the vanpool agreement and record evidence showed no basis to impute the driver’s negligence to VPSI or the Transportation Authority: the driver was treated as an independent contractor/volunteer, the contract did not grant control over driving methods, the accident occurred during personal errands outside any business purpose, and the elements of joint enterprise were not met.


Bell v. VPSI, Inc., 205 S.W.3d 706 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2006)