From our private database of 33,800+ case briefs...
Esquivel v. Murray Guard, Inc.
Texas Court of Appeals
992 S.W.2d 536 (1999)
Debbie Esquivel (plaintiff) stayed at a hotel operated by La Quinta (defendant). A hotel clerk directed Esquivel to park a moving van that contained her personal property and was towing her car on an adjacent street, assuring Esquivel that the moving van and car would be safe there because of security provided by La Quinta. The next morning, the moving van and car were gone. Esquivel and her insurer, Florida Residential Property & Casualty Joint Underwriters Association (the insurer) (plaintiff), sued La Quinta, asserting a number of causes of action including negligence. During discovery, Esquivel and the insurer found that Murray Guard, Inc. (defendant) had contracted with La Quinta to provide security, and Esquivel and the insurer joined Murray as a defendant. Murray and La Quinta’s contract provided that Murray would be a contractor, LaQuinta would pay Murray an hourly rate for providing security services, security guards would be Murray employees, and Murray employees could not provide services to hotel guests except in limited and rare circumstances. The contract incorporated documents entitled Guard Orders and Statement of Work that set forth the guards’ responsibilities, including an obligation to report improper lighting and to use only necessary force. La Quinta prepared the Statement of Work and Guard Orders, and only La Quinta had the right to change the Guard Orders. La Quinta approved Murray security guard shifts and decided how many security guards were needed. La Quinta consulted Murray in deciding the security guards’ duties. The statute of limitations had run as to Murray when Esquivel and the insurer filed their claim against Murray, so Murray filed a motion for summary judgment on that basis, and the trial court granted the motion. Esquivel and the insurer appealed, arguing that Murray and La Quinta were a joint enterprise, and that therefore their claims against Murray should relate back to their timely claims against La Quinta.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Fowler, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 604,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 604,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 33,800 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.