Arvizu v. Estate of George Puckett

It was stipulated in this case that Edward Cantu's negligence caused an auto accident. Cantu was employed by Montgomery County Auto Auction but was driving a truck owned by Puckett Auto Sales. The court of appeals remanded for a new trial, finding that MCAA and Puckett could not have simultaneously controlled Cantu's conduct. If findings create a conflict about the same material fact, the party claiming conflict must show that one of the conflicting findings necessarily requires the entry of a judgment different from that which the court has entered. The court of appeals' judgment is reversed. Texas Supreme Court, No. 11-0023, 03-30-2012.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Juana Lorena Arvizu and her son were injured when her car was struck by a pickup truck driven by Edward Cantu. Montgomery County Auto Auction employed Cantu. Puckett Auto Sales owned the truck. Cantu’s negligence was stipulated. A jury found that, although MCAA was his employer, Cantu drove the vehicle for Puckett’s benefit. The jury found that MCAA, as Cantu’s employer, had the right to direct the details of his work. It also found that Cantu was subject to Puckett’s control "as to the details of the mission" when the accident occurred. The trial court rendered judgment for Arvizu. The court of appeals remanded for a new trial, holding that a jury could not logically find MCAA and Puckett to have simultaneously controlled Cantu’s conduct, as the trial court had instructed the jury that Cantu could not have been an employee of both. But the jury also found that MCAA was subject to Puckett’s control and was on a mission for Puckett’s benefit–which comprise the elements of a principal-agent relationship. MCAA is vicariously liable for its employee’s negligence; Puckett as principal is responsible for its agent’s conduct. Because we are able to reconcile the jury’s answers on that agency theory, we reverse the court of appeals’ judgment.

Puckett Auto Sales buys used cars and sells them at public auctions. Puckett had a longstanding commercial relationship with Montgomery County Auto Auction in which MCAA would not only auction Puckett’s vehicles, but would also transport unsold vehicles to other auction houses or back to Puckett’s car lot. When Puckett’s pickup truck did not sell, Puckett instructed MCAA to deliver it to another auction house. MCAA assigned its employee Edward Cantu to accomplish that directive, and the accident with Arvizu occurred in transit.

Arvizu v. Estate of George Puckett

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal