## Facts

- Jimmy Valentine was killed when Justin Hodnett drove into oncoming traffic and collided head-on with Valentine’s vehicle.
- Four days earlier, Hodnett had started work for LouTex Contractors, Inc. as a laborer to help other employees move heavy equipment to a different jobsite.
- LouTex did not hire Hodnett as a driver. He did not drive LouTex vehicles and did not use his personal truck for LouTex work.
- Even for commuting, Hodnett typically did not drive himself to the jobsite. Another LouTex employee picked him up near offices by company trailers employees rented and transported him to and from the jobsite.
- As part of hiring, LouTex required a drug screen, which Hodnett passed.
- Hodnett disclosed that he took prescription hydrocodone for preexisting back pain. Hodnett stated that LouTex’s safety officer told him to take it properly and not to overdo it.
- After his fourth day of work, Hodnett went to the hospital for back pain and received a narcotic injection, then returned to his trailer.
- The next morning, before going to the office pickup location, Hodnett drove his personal truck toward a gas station to buy breakfast and lunch for himself, intending then to return to the office for his usual ride to the jobsite.
- On that trip, Hodnett crossed into oncoming traffic and struck Valentine, causing Valentine’s death.
- Police found a bottle of hydrocodone prescribed to Hodnett in Hodnett’s truck.
- Valentine’s widow and children sued Hodnett for negligence and sued LouTex on theories of respondeat superior and negligent hiring and supervision.
- LouTex moved for summary judgment; the motion was referred to a magistrate judge for a report and recommendation.

## Issues

1. Whether LouTex could be held vicariously liable under Texas respondeat superior law for Hodnett’s negligent driving while he was in his personal truck on a pre-work trip to buy his own food.
2. Whether the evidence raised a genuine fact dispute that LouTex negligently hired or supervised Hodnett and that any such negligence proximately caused Valentine’s death.

## Decision

- The magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment to LouTex on respondeat superior because Hodnett was not acting within the course and scope of employment at the time of the collision.
- The magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment to LouTex on negligent hiring and supervision because the record did not show LouTex knew or should have known Hodnett posed an unreasonable risk that led to the collision, or that LouTex’s conduct caused the harm.
- The recommendation addressed LouTex’s liability; the negligence claim against Hodnett as the driver was separate from the employer-liability rulings.

## Legal Principles

- Under Texas law, an employer is vicariously liable for an employee’s tort only when the employee acts within the course and scope of employment, meaning the employee acts (1) within general authority, (2) in furtherance of the employer’s business, and (3) for the accomplishment of the work the employee was hired to perform.
- Ordinary travel to or from work, and personal errands or preparations before work, generally fall outside the course and scope of employment, absent facts showing the employer directed the travel, controlled the details of the trip, or the employee was on a special assignment for the employer’s benefit.
- Use of an employee’s personal vehicle for purely personal reasons, where the employer does not require or benefit from the trip, weighs against course-and-scope employment.
- Negligent hiring and negligent supervision require proof that the employer knew or should have known, through the exercise of reasonable care, that hiring or retaining the employee created an unreasonable risk of the type of harm that occurred.
- To survive summary judgment on negligent hiring or supervision, a plaintiff must offer evidence linking the employer’s hiring or oversight to the injury through foreseeability and proximate cause, not mere speculation.
- Evidence that an employee lawfully used prescribed medication, without evidence the employer had reason to expect impairment leading to the injury, is generally insufficient to establish negligent hiring or supervision.

## Conclusion

In *Valentine v. Hodnett*, the magistrate judge recommended summary judgment for LouTex because Hodnett’s pre-work drive in his own truck to buy personal meals was not in furtherance of LouTex’s business and therefore was outside the course and scope of employment, and because the evidence (including a passed drug screen and lawful prescription use) did not show LouTex had reason to foresee and prevent the risk that resulted in the fatal collision.


Valentine v. Hodnett, 2015 WL 12942069 (2015)