Direct claims against the carrier.

Two paths to carrier liability

In any trucking case where a company driver caused a crash, plaintiff's counsel typically pursues two parallel theories against the motor carrier:

1. Respondeat superior (vicarious liability)

The employer is automatically liable for the negligent acts of its employees committed within the course and scope of employment. Easy to establish, but it makes the carrier's liability derivative of the driver's — meaning the carrier can only be liable to the extent of the driver's liability.

2. Direct negligence (independent claims)

The carrier is liable for its OWN negligence — separate from the driver's negligence. This includes:

• Negligent hiring
• Negligent retention
• Negligent training
• Negligent supervision
• Negligent entrustment

Each of these is an independent theory of liability that requires its own elements and its own evidence.

The strategic question — particularly in Texas — is whether a carrier's admission of respondeat superior should preclude (or "moot") the direct negligence claims. This is the "stipulation" issue.

The stipulation issue in Texas

In some Texas cases — including Bedford v. Moore, 166 S.W.3d 454 (Tex. App. 2005) — courts have held that when an employer admits respondeat superior for an employee's negligence, direct negligence claims against the employer should be dismissed as redundant. The theory: if the employer is already on the hook for the driver's negligence under respondeat superior, the direct claims add nothing.

This is bad news for plaintiffs because direct negligence claims often support significant punitive damages exposure that respondeat superior doesn't.

However, there are important exceptions where direct negligence claims survive even with a respondeat superior admission:

• Gross negligence / punitive damages. The carrier's gross negligence in hiring or retaining a bad driver supports punitive damages against the carrier separately. Estate of Arrington v. Fields and other cases support this.
• Negligent entrustment. Texas courts have generally allowed negligent entrustment claims to proceed even with respondeat superior admissions, because the theory differs in nature.
• Multiple-defendant cases. When other defendants are involved (shippers, brokers, maintenance contractors), the apportionment of fault may require direct negligence theories to be tried.

The framing of direct negligence claims matters greatly. Done right, they survive stipulation motions and create independent paths to carrier liability.

Negligent hiring

The cause of action: the carrier hired a driver it knew or should have known was unfit, and that unfitness caused the plaintiff's harm.

Elements:

1. The carrier had a duty of reasonable care in hiring
2. The carrier failed to perform a reasonable hiring investigation
3. If a reasonable investigation had been performed, the carrier would have discovered the driver's unfitness
4. The driver caused the plaintiff's harm
5. The plaintiff's harm was reasonably foreseeable given the driver's unfitness

Common evidence:

• The Pre-Employment Screening Program (PSP) report. A federal record showing the driver's prior crashes, inspections, and violations. Carriers are required to obtain PSP reports for new hires. Failure to obtain or properly review the PSP is significant evidence.
• Motor vehicle records (MVRs) from each state the driver licensed in for the past 3 years
• Prior employer verifications (DAC reports under 49 CFR § 391.23(d))
• Drug and alcohol testing history
• Criminal background check (where required by company policy or by the carrier's representations)
• Medical certification (DOT physical, expired or invalid certs)

Cases that have built strong negligent hiring claims often reveal: failed drug tests at prior carriers, multiple at-fault crashes, repeated HOS violations, license suspensions during the hiring period, or misrepresentations on the employment application that proper investigation would have caught.

Negligent retention

The cause of action: even if the driver was qualified when hired, the carrier discovered (or should have discovered) facts during employment indicating unfitness, and failed to terminate the driver — and that retention contributed to the plaintiff's harm.

The annual review of driving records under 49 CFR § 391.25(a) is a key piece. Carriers are required to review every driver's MVR at least once per year and act on adverse findings. Failure to do so — or finding adverse information and ignoring it — supports negligent retention.

Common patterns:

• Driver has multiple crashes during employment, carrier takes no remedial action
• Driver has repeated HOS violations identified in roadside inspections, carrier doesn't address
• Customer/dispatcher complaints about unsafe driving, undocumented
• Failed or refused drug tests, driver returned to service without proper procedure
• License downgrades or suspensions occurring during employment
• Driver involved in prior litigation as defendant for a similar crash

Negligent entrustment

The cause of action: the carrier entrusted a vehicle to a driver knowing (or with reason to know) the driver was likely to use it in a manner involving unreasonable risk.

This is procedurally distinct from negligent hiring/retention because it focuses on the act of giving the driver the keys — not the broader employment relationship.

Elements (Texas):

1. Entrustment of a vehicle by the owner
2. To an unlicensed, incompetent, or reckless driver
3. That the owner knew or should have known to be unlicensed, incompetent, or reckless
4. The driver was negligent on the occasion in question
5. The driver's negligence proximately caused the injury

Negligent entrustment claims are often the strongest direct-negligence theory because they survive stipulation motions more reliably than negligent hiring/retention, and they directly tie carrier liability to the driver's specific incompetence.

Negligent training and supervision

Beyond hiring decisions, carriers have ongoing duties:

Negligent training

The carrier failed to adequately train the driver on:

• Hours of Service compliance
• Vehicle inspection requirements
• Cargo securement
• Defensive driving in hazardous conditions
• Hazardous materials handling (if applicable)
• Specific routes or operations

Discovery target: training records, training materials, completion certificates, training schedules, content of safety meetings.

Negligent supervision

The carrier failed to supervise the driver in a way that would have prevented the negligence:

• Inadequate dispatch oversight
• Failure to investigate complaints or incidents
• Failure to monitor ELD/HOS compliance
• Failure to use available technology to detect unsafe driving (telematics, dashcam)
• Pressure on drivers to meet unrealistic schedules

The supervision claim particularly resonates with juries — it frames the carrier as having actively pushed the driver into the unsafe conduct rather than merely failing to catch it.

Why direct claims matter

Three reasons direct negligence claims against the carrier matter:

1. Punitive damages exposure

Gross negligence in hiring, retention, training, or supervision supports punitive damages against the carrier directly — independent of the driver's conduct. This can multiply case value significantly. See TX punitive damages caps.

2. Pattern evidence

Direct negligence claims open the door to evidence about the carrier's pattern of safety practices — prior incidents, SMS scores, regulatory history. This evidence is less available on a pure respondeat superior theory.

3. Insurance and asset access

Most carriers have substantial commercial liability policies — typically $750,000 minimum under FMCSA financial responsibility rules (§ 387.9), and often $1 million or more. Direct negligence claims may also implicate excess and umbrella policies and corporate assets in serious cases.