 |
studentJD |
|
|
Students Helping Students |
Currently Briefing & Updating |
© 2010 No content replication for monetary use of any kind is allowed without express written permission
|
Esquivel v. Murray Guard, Inc., 992 S.W.2d 536 |
Tex. App. |
1999 |
|
Chapter |
13 |
Title |
Vicarious Liability |
|
Page |
575 |
Topic |
Joint Enterprises, Joint Ventures & Partnerships |
|
Quick Notes |
U-Haul Stolen at La Quinta. Employer-Employee relationship does not qualify as a joint venture. |
||
|
Issue |
o Whether the employer-employee relationship would qualify as a joint venture? No. |
|
Procedure |
|
|
Trial |
o Trial court's order granting summary judgment in favor of appellee, Murray Guard, Inc |
|
Tex. App |
o Affirmed. Esquivel did not meet her burder. |
|
Facts |
Reasoning |
Rules |
|
o Pl/App Esquivel o Df - Murray Guard What happened? o Appellants, Debbie Esquivel appeal from the trial court's order granting summary judgment in favor of appellee, Murray Guard, Inc. ("Murray Guard"). o Esquivel brings three points of error, contending the trial court erred in (1) granting summary judgment in favor of Murray Guard on her tort claim; (2) granting summary judgment in favor of Murray Guard on her contract claim; and (3) requiring her to file a supersedeas bond for taxable court costs. o We affirm.
o On June 19, 1994, Debbie Esquivel rented a hotel room at the Baytown La Quinta. o She asked the clerk where she could park a rented U-Haul moving van containing personal property and towing her car. o A clerk told her to park on the street adjacent to the hotel and assured her the van would be safe "because of the security it provided." o The next day, Esquivel's van and car were missing.
o Esquivel sued La Quinta for negligence breach of warranty, breach of contract, and violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA), believing La Quinta was the sole provider of security.
o During the course of discovery, Esquivel learned that Murray Guard provided security to the La Quinta in question. o She joined Murray Guard on August 30, 1996, and Murray Guard filed a motion for summary judgment asserting that the statute of limitations had run and that the discovery rule did not apply. o The court granted the motion and severed Murray Guard.
|
o A supersedeas bond is a type of surety bond that a court requires from an appellant who wants to delay payment of a judgment until the appeal is over.
Esquivel Arg o Claims there is a genuine issue of material fact that exists as to whether La Quinta and Murray Guard enter into a joint enterprise. o Argues that under the joint enterprise rule, her joinder to Murray related back to the date she sued La Quinta.
Joint Enterprise Rule o The joint enterprise rule is not used as a relation-back method.
Theory of joint enterprise o The theory of joint enterprise is to make each party the agent of the other and thereby to hold each responsible for the negligent act of the other.
o An employer/employee relationship would not qualify as a joint enterprise because there is no mutuality of control- the employer has control over the employee and usually is responsible for the actions within the course and scope of his job, but the employee does not have the right to control the employer.
In this case o La Quinta controls the keys given to the security guard. o Murray Guard receives an hourly rate from La Quinta. o The statement of work establishes the security guards duties. o There is no pecuniary [relating to money] interests.
|
|
|
Class Notes |
|
Quick Facts: A customer at La Quinta asks the security guard where she can park her u-haul. The security guard tells her where to park it and lets her know about their security. The van is stolen and the customer tries to sue for Joint Enterprise.
Theory of joint enterprise o The theory of joint enterprise is to make each party the agent of the other and thereby to hold each responsible for the negligent act of the other.
o An employer/employee relationship would not qualify as a joint enterprise because there is no mutuality of control- the employer has control over the employee and usually is responsible for the actions within the course and scope of his job, but the employee does not have the right to control the employer.
In this case o La Quinta controls the keys given to the security guard. o Murray Guard receives an hourly rate from La Quinta. o The statement of work establishes the security guards duties. o There is no pecuniary [relating to money] interests.
|