## Facts

- Danny Williams was injured in a January 5, 2007 traffic collision involving a tractor–trailer driven by Lister McCollister.
- McCollister was employed by P.A.M. Transport, Inc., which owned the truck.
- P.A.M. admitted McCollister was acting within the course and scope of employment at the time of the accident and accepted potential respondeat superior liability for his negligence.
- Williams sued McCollister for ordinary negligence and sued P.A.M. for negligent hiring, negligent supervision, negligent training, and negligent retention.
- P.A.M. moved for partial summary judgment on the direct-liability claims against it, leaving the negligence claim against McCollister and P.A.M.’s vicarious-liability exposure.
- A magistrate judge recommended granting the motion; no timely substantive objections were filed.
- The district court reviewed for clear error and adopted the report and recommendation, granting partial summary judgment to P.A.M. on the direct-liability theories.

## Issues

1. Whether a plaintiff may maintain employer direct-liability claims for negligent hiring, supervision, training, and retention when the employer admits respondeat superior liability and the plaintiff seeks only compensatory damages.
2. Whether the summary-judgment record raised a genuine dispute of material fact supporting P.A.M.’s alleged negligent hiring, supervision, training, or retention.

## Decision

- The court granted P.A.M.’s motion for partial summary judgment on Williams’s claims of negligent hiring, supervision, training, and retention.
- The negligence claim against McCollister remained pending, as did P.A.M.’s admitted vicarious liability for any negligence by McCollister within the scope of employment.
- Because no timely objections were filed to the magistrate judge’s recommendation, the district court reviewed for clear error under Rule 72(b), found none, and adopted the recommendation in full.

## Legal Principles

- When an employer admits an employee acted within the course and scope of employment and accepts respondeat superior liability, direct negligence claims against the employer (negligent hiring, supervision, training, retention) may be treated as redundant in a case seeking only compensatory damages, absent a distinct basis for additional relief tied to the employer’s independent fault.
- On summary judgment, the nonmovant must produce evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact on each element of the asserted direct-liability claims; allegations and speculation do not suffice.
- When a party does not timely object to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the district court may adopt it after confirming there is no clear error on the face of the record.

## Conclusion

The court dismissed the plaintiff’s direct negligence claims against the employer at summary judgment because the employer’s admission of vicarious liability rendered those theories unnecessary for compensatory recovery and, in any event, the record did not show a triable issue that the employer independently acted negligently in hiring, supervising, training, or retaining the driver.


Williams v. McCollister, 671 F. Supp. 2d 884 (S.D. Tex. 2009)