Case No. 23-1015
Cesar Posada crashed his tractor-trailer into Osvanis Lozada's tractor-trailer, which was jackknifed across both lanes of Interstate 10 in foggy conditions. Lozada, a driver for TELS, Inc., testified he was traveling in the left lane about 72 miles per hour, under the speed limit, when his new right front tire separated from the rim and lost air very fast, pulling him to the right and causing the truck to jackknife before Posada, who was traveling in the left lane, hit him.1
Posada sued Lozada in El Paso County for negligence and negligence per se and TELS for vicarious liability. After discovery Lozada and TELS filed no-evidence motions for summary judgment on breach and proximate cause; Posada responded with excerpts of Lozada's deposition and two photographs, and the trial court granted the motions. A divided Eighth Court of Appeals reversed, holding a jury could find Lozada breached his duty because his truck blocked both lanes (2023 WL 5671449). The Court decided the petition per curiam without oral argument.1
Petition for review from the Eighth Court of Appeals after a no-evidence summary judgment; decided per curiam without oral argument under Rules 59.1 and 60.2(c).2
Whether Posada produced more than a scintilla of evidence that Lozada breached his duty of care or caused the collision.1
A no-evidence motion is sustained when there is a complete absence of evidence of a vital fact or no more than a scintilla, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant.1
Lozada and TELS (Petitioners): there is no evidence Lozada acted negligently in responding to a sudden tire failure.
Posada (Respondent): Lozada's testimony and the photographs raise fact issues, credibility is for the jury, and Lozada had to file a traditional motion because he offered an explanation for his conduct.1
Not applicable to the Court's decision; the opinion does not recite the petition's cert-worthiness arguments.
None noted
Posada failed to produce more than a scintilla of evidence of breach for either negligence or negligence per se, so the summary judgment for Lozada and TELS is reinstated.1
Lozada owed a common-law duty of reasonable care and statutory duties concerning speed and stopping on the roadway, but the record showed him driving safely under the limit when his tire rapidly and unexpectedly lost air, and no evidence suggested he reacted negligently, what speed would have been prudent, or that he should have moved the truck before Posada hit it. Res ipsa loquitur applies only rarely and Posada conceded it was not at issue; Restatement commentary confirms that a tire blowout alone does not show negligence. Rule 166a(c) permits summary judgment on uncontroverted interested-witness testimony that could have been readily controverted, and Posada could have offered photographs, other witnesses or an expert. The burden of proving no unavoidable accident or excuse is the plaintiff's, so a no-evidence motion was proper, and because Lozada was not negligent TELS is not vicariously liable.2
Court of appeals' judgment reversed and trial court's judgment dismissing Posada's claims with prejudice reinstated.3
Per curiam opinion.4
The following is current as of October 9, 2026.
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 06/21/2024 | Brief on the Merits Ordered |
| 06/20/2025 | Opinion issued Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 59.1, after granting the petition for review and without hearing oral argument, the Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and reinstates the trial court's judgment. Per Curiam Opinion |
| 09/05/2025 | Motion for Rehearing - Disposed |
| 09/05/2025 | Mandate issued |
Review SCOTX decisions faster than ever.
With a SCOTX Report account, receive AI-generated summaries of every opinion and order, plus direct links to the briefing, opinions, and orders themselves—so you can quickly determine whether each opinion and order deserves your attention.
Create a Free Account Log In