Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Alton Julian During and Charles Clark sued UMT Global Logistics, LLC and an unidentified driver over an October 8, 2025 collision on Interstate 35E in Farmers Branch, Texas. They alleged that the driver, while working under dispatch and within the scope of his UMT employment, made an unsafe lane change and sideswiped their vehicle, causing property damage and bodily injuries.
The plaintiffs asserted negligence against the driver, respondeat superior against UMT, and direct-liability claims against UMT for negligent entrustment and negligent hiring, supervision, training, and retention. After removing the case from Texas state court on diversity grounds, UMT moved under Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss the direct-liability claims with prejudice. The plaintiffs did not respond.
The Court’s Holding
The court agreed that the complaint did not plausibly plead negligent entrustment. It alleged no facts showing that the driver had a preexisting history of incompetence or recklessness, or that UMT knew or should have known of such a history when it entrusted the vehicle. Allegations concerning the driver’s conduct during the collision did not establish that he was incompetent or reckless at the time of entrustment, and the complaint’s assertion that UMT knew or should have known of his condition was merely conclusory.
The court likewise found that the negligent hiring, supervision, training, and retention allegations merely recited the elements of those claims without supporting facts. Nevertheless, it denied UMT’s request for dismissal with prejudice and gave the plaintiffs 30 days to amend. The court warned that failure to amend within that period would result in dismissal with prejudice of the challenged claims.
Key Takeaways
- A negligent-entrustment complaint must allege facts supporting the driver’s incompetence or recklessness when the vehicle was entrusted and the defendant’s actual or constructive knowledge of that condition.
- Allegations of negligent driving during the accident, without facts showing a prior history or other pre-entrustment warning signs, did not make the negligent-entrustment claim plausible.
- Although the direct-negligence claims were inadequately pleaded, the court permitted amendment rather than dismissing them with prejudice at this stage.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the factual detail required to plead direct negligence against a motor carrier under Texas law. A plaintiff cannot rely solely on an employee’s alleged fault in the underlying collision or recite that the employer knew the employee was unfit; the complaint must identify facts supporting unfitness, deficient screening or supervision, and employer knowledge.
It also highlights the distinction between finding a claim deficient and immediately terminating it with prejudice. Here, even without a response to the dismissal motion, the plaintiffs received an opportunity to cure their pleadings, subject to a firm 30-day deadline.