Bell v. Vpsi, Inc.

205 S.W.3d 706 (2006)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

The Transportation Authority (T) provides public transportation services through the Budget Group, Inc. VPSI (D) is a for-profit wholly-owned subsidiary of The Budget Group, Inc. VPSI (D) operates commuter vanpool programs. T began a vanpool program and decided to use VPSI (D) as a provider of vehicles and maintenance. The program grew to 125 vans by 1995. The program served Lockheed, Bell Helicopter, and Burlington Northern. In 1998, T contracted directly with VPSI (D) to lease a fleet of passenger vans. Drivers, passengers, and their employers are solicited by T to participate in the vanpool program. Passengers pay a monthly charge to T for commutes to and from work. Volunteer drivers agree to transport passengers to and from their employment in vans provided by VPSI (D). Each driver is assigned a van and agrees to drive and maintain the van, including scheduled and unscheduled maintenance at VPSI's (D) cost, recruit additional passengers to keep the vanpool at optimal occupancy and collect the vanpool passenger charges. The drivers receive daily commutes to and from their employment without charge and are also allowed personal use of the assigned vans on evenings and weekends for up to 250 miles per month. A contract called the 'Three-Party Volunteer Driver Agreement' governs the relationship. The agreement provides that the Authorized Driver 'is not an agent, servant or employee of VPSI (D). The Authorized Driver is an independent party participating, with others, in a voluntary, not for profit, ridesharing agreement.' Homer (D) entered into a three-party volunteer driver agreement. On a rainy Saturday Homer (D) drove the van he had been assigned, with P as a passenger, some twenty-eight miles from their home. Homer (D) and P shopped at the local Wal-Mart for about an hour, lunched at Taco Bell for approximately another half hour, and then returned to the Wal-Mart parking lot where they waited nearly another hour for their daughter to deliver their two grandchildren to them for an overnight stay. After picking up their grandchildren, Homer (D) proceeded thirteen to fifteen miles up a different road to see a display of a lighted Santa Claus figure loading his reindeer into an eighteen-wheeler. They were on Farm Road 455 when the van hydroplaned on the wet roadway and crashed into a tree. P alleged that she sustained injuries in the accident. P sued Homer, VPSI, and T (Ds), alleging that Homer's (D) negligence caused her injuries and that VPSI (D) and T were vicariously liable for Homer's negligence under the doctrines of respondeat superior, retained contractual control, and joint enterprise. P sued Homer, VPSI, and T (Ds), alleging that Homer's (D) negligence caused her injuries and that VPSI (D) and T were vicariously liable for Homer's negligence under the doctrines of respondeat superior, retained contractual control, and joint enterprise. VPSI (D) and T moved for summary judgment in that Homer (D) was an independent contractor and that no agency, employment, or joint enterprise relationship existed. The court ruled for Ds and P appealed.