A young man, Natalio Garcia, died when his motorcycle collided with a tractor-trailer owned and operated by Werner Enterprises, Inc., a nationwide motor carrier regulated by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, whose driver allegedly ran a red light while hauling Home Depot's goods between stores.¹ The plaintiffs, his parents and estate, allege no facts tying Home Depot to the conduct that caused the accident: they do not allege that it owned, controlled or operated the truck, supervised the driver, or supplied a defective instrumentality, and they allege only that it negligently selected Werner, whose safety record included more than 850 reportable collisions in two years.²

The plaintiffs sued Werner and its driver for negligence and gross negligence and then amended to add the same claims against Home Depot, which moved to dismiss under Rule 91a as a mere shipper that owed no duty to the driving public, and the trial court denied the motion.¹ The Fourteenth Court of Appeals (Houston) summarily denied mandamus.² The Supreme Court heard argument on March 4, 2026,³ and on May 15, 2026 conditionally granted mandamus.⁴

Original proceeding for writ of mandamus after the Fourteenth Court of Appeals denied relief; argued March 4, 2026; opinion by Justice Devine issued May 15, 2026.⁵

• Home Depot:¹ whether a shipper is liable to an injured motorist for the actions of an independently hired motor-carrier driver when the driver was not its employee, it exercised no control, transporting an ordinary load is not ultrahazardous and its hiring of the carrier did not cause the driver to run a red light, and whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the Rule 91a motion.
• The plaintiffs:² the narrow question whether they alleged facts under Texas law sufficient to state a negligence claim against Home Depot, which they say cannot be decided at the pleadings stage.

A Rule 91a ruling is reviewed de novo on the allegations of the live petition, accepted as true, and mandamus is appropriate when a trial court abuses its discretion in denying a Rule 91a motion.¹

Whether Home Depot owed a duty.

Home Depot (Relator): As a shipper that exercised no control over an independent motor carrier and did not cause its driver to run a red light, it owed no duty to the motorist, and the trial court abused its discretion in denying dismissal.¹

The Perozo plaintiffs (Real Parties in Interest): Home Depot improperly seeks summary judgment at the pleadings stage, whether it exercised control or its hiring caused the crash is evidentiary and cannot be decided on a Rule 91a motion, and Texas law recognizes shipper duties in certain circumstances, including negligent hiring.²

Home Depot argued that mandamus should issue to correct the denial of a Rule 91a motion on a claim that has no basis in law, and the plaintiffs responded that it improperly seeks summary judgment at the pleadings stage.¹

• Broad or narrow holding. Asked whether the Court must make a broad independent-contractor holding to say hiring a licensed shipper creates no liability for its drivers' crashes, Home Depot's counsel said yes, stressing context. (Oral Argument, 2:08:56)
• Rule 91a and outside facts. Justice Bland asked whether reliance on Werner's federal compliance suits Rule 91a or needs evidence outside the pleadings; Home Depot's counsel said it fits because the facts are undisputed. (Oral Argument, 2:17:30; 2:24:38)
• Why mandamus. Asked why mandamus is warranted at the motion-to-dismiss stage, Home Depot's counsel said Werner admitted vicarious liability for its employee, so the shipper has no place in the case. (Oral Argument, 2:20:57)
• Summary judgment instead. Responding to Justices Bland and Busby, Real Parties' counsel said Home Depot should have sought summary judgment, not Rule 91a dismissal, if it wanted evidence considered. (Oral Argument, 2:24:38)
• Nothing tied to this wreck. Asked whether any allegation ties Home Depot to this driver, truck or wreck, Real Parties' counsel said none does, but Home Depot knew of Werner's accident history when hiring it. (Oral Argument, 2:33:13)
• Plutonium hypothetical. A Justice asked about shipping plutonium by a neighbor's single truck; Home Depot's counsel distinguished a national carrier holding a federal license and bound by federal regulations. (Oral Argument, 2:13:50)
• Individual shippers. Asked about handing FedEx a package, Real Parties' counsel said an individual owes no duty without knowing the carrier's identity, and discovery would show what a shipper knew. (Oral Argument, 2:29:37; 2:31:35)
• Restatement (Third). Asked why not apply the Restatement (Third), Real Parties' counsel said Section 55 and comment b carry a Restatement (Second) Section 411 violation into liability under the Third. (Oral Argument, 2:41:40)

None noted

Holding

Texas law does not impose a duty of care on a passive shipper under the facts alleged, because the plaintiffs' theory transforms the ordinary act of shipping goods into tort liability untethered from control, conduct and risk, so the claims against Home Depot have no basis in law.¹

Reasoning

Duty is a threshold question, and one generally has no duty to control another's conduct unless there is a special relationship, control over the injury-producing actor, instrumentality or premises, or conduct that creates or increases the risk, and one who hires an independent contractor is generally not liable for its torts absent retained control or a nondelegable duty, none of which is pleaded.² Even assuming negligent hiring of a contractor is viable, the plaintiffs' theory that Home Depot negligently hired a carrier that negligently hired a negligent driver is liability twice removed, and Home Depot had no duty to investigate Werner because the shipment presented no unusual risk and Home Depot neither controlled the actors nor created the risk.³ A shipper of ordinary cargo may rely on a federally regulated carrier to operate lawfully, private parties should not duplicate the federal safety regime or rank more than a million carriers, and United Rentals v. Evans is distinguishable because the shipper there loaded oversized equipment on the wrong trailer and created the danger.⁴

Disposition

Mandamus conditionally granted, with the trial court directed to vacate its order denying the Rule 91a motion and dismiss the claims against Home Depot, and the writ to issue only if it does not.⁵

Vote Breakdown

Majority Opinion by Justice Devine

Joined by Blacklock, C.J., and Bland, Busby, Hawkins, Huddle, Lehrmann, Sullivan, and Young, JJ.

De novo review of a Rule 91a dismissal motion based on the live petition.¹

Justice Devine delivered the opinion of the Court, with no separate writings.¹