Valentine v. Hodnett
United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas
2015 WL 12942069 (2015)
- Written by Rose VanHofwegen, JD
Facts
Jimmy Valentine’s widow and children (plaintiffs) sued Justin Hodnett and Hodnett’s employer, LouTex Contactors, Inc. (defendants) after Hodnett drove into oncoming traffic before work one morning, killing Valentine. Hodnett began working for LouTex four days before the accident. LouTex hired Hodnett to help other employees move heavy equipment to another jobsite. Hodnett was not hired to drive LouTex vehicles and never did so. Hodnett also never used his personal truck for work-related purposes, even driving to and from work. Another LouTex employee picked up Hodnett from offices near company trailers employees rented and drove him to and from the jobsite. Hodnett had passed a drug screen but admitted taking prescription hydrocodone for preexisting back pain. Hodnett said LouTex’s safety officer had told him just to take it properly and not to overdo it. After his fourth day, Hodnett went to the hospital, received a shot of narcotics for pain, and returned to his trailer. The next morning, Hodnett drove his truck to go to the gas station to buy breakfast and lunch, then return to the offices to be picked up. On his way, Hodnett veered into oncoming traffic, hitting Valentine. Police found a bottle of hydrocodone prescribed to Hodnett in his truck. Valentine’s family asserted LouTex was vicariously liable as Hodnett’s employer and directly liable for negligently hiring and supervising him. LouTex filed a motion for summary judgment assigned to a magistrate judge for a recommendation.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Quiroga, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 834,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,600 briefs, keyed to 994 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.