Wade Crosnoe Secures Reversal, Rendition of $16M Judgment in Wrongful Death Case

Background

The case arose from an accident in which New Mission’s employee drove her elderly client and his wife and her sister on a personal errand and drove around activated railroad crossing arms on the way home. The client was killed, and the other passengers were injured in the ensuing car-train collision.

After the judge vacated a previous summary judgment in New Mission’s favor and the employee driver was nonsuited, the case moved to a jury trial against New Mission and the railroad company Union Pacific. At trial, the jury found that the employee was acting in the course and scope of her employment and that New Mission was negligent in hiring, training, and supervising her. The trial court held New Mission jointly and severally liable for $13 million in damages plus pre-judgment and post-judgment interest.

New Mission raised eight issues on appeal, including challenges to the sufficiency of evidence supporting the jury’s findings, jury charge error, and judgment formation error. However, the Court of Appeals only found it necessary to address three of those issues.

Determining Whether Employee Acted Within Course and Scope of Employment

In its opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed and rendered a take-nothing judgment for New Mission based on the lack of legally sufficient evidence supporting the jury’s findings. Before addressing the sufficiency of the evidence, the court first held that the trial court’s definition of course and scope of employment—which was taken from the Pattern Jury Charge—was erroneous because it only included one of the three recognized elements of course and scope.

Because that error was preserved at trial, the Court of Appeals measured the sufficiency of the evidence against the definition that should have been given. The court concluded no legally sufficient evidence supported the course and scope finding because, among other reasons, both Texas law and company policy forbid home care agency’s employees from transporting patients, and the employee and plaintiffs were aware of the policy. The court also concluded that no legally sufficient evidence supported the jury’s findings of negligent hiring, supervision, and training, primarily because any such negligence was not the proximate cause of the accident and because the employee’s suspended license did not make her an incompetent driver.