Background
Jose Navarrete, an employee of Phil Dollar Oilfield Services, Inc., was helping remove a wellhead during an oil-well plugging operation. After using a backhoe and chain to suspend the wellhead, Navarrete left the running backhoe unattended and entered the excavation to assist with a final cut. The backhoe shifted, the chain came loose, and the wellhead fell on Navarrete, leaving him paralyzed from the waist down.
Rey & K Services had periodically provided safety training to PDOS employees since 2018 and prepared a post-incident report identifying the unattended backhoe, failure to follow basic procedures, and human error as causes. Navarrete sued Rey & K and others. As to Rey & K, the only claim remaining at issue was negligence based on allegedly inadequate training. Rey & K sought traditional and no-evidence summary judgment, and the trial court granted summary judgment without specifying the ground.
The Court’s Holding
The Seventh Court of Appeals affirmed on the no-evidence ground. Assuming without deciding that Rey & K owed Navarrete a duty to train him adequately, the court held that Navarrete failed to produce more than a scintilla of evidence that Rey & K breached such a duty or that any breach proximately caused his injuries.
Navarrete’s affidavit said he acted consistently with training received while employed by PDOS, but it did not connect his conduct to specific training given or omitted by Rey & K, establish an applicable training standard of care, or demonstrate causation. Testimony that his conduct was inconsistent with proper training and the incident report’s reference to failures to follow basic procedures likewise did not show what Rey & K taught, whether its training was inadequate, or whether adequate training would have prevented the injury. Because the no-evidence ground supported the judgment, the court did not reach Navarrete’s remaining appellate issues.
Key Takeaways
- Evidence that a defendant provided workplace-safety training does not, by itself, establish that the training was negligently performed.
- A negligence plaintiff opposing no-evidence summary judgment must present more than a scintilla of evidence on both breach and proximate causation.
- The court assumed a duty for purposes of its analysis but did not decide whether Texas recognizes a negligent-training duty under these circumstances.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the evidentiary detail needed to pursue a negligent-training theory in Texas. A plaintiff must connect identified deficiencies in the defendant’s training to an applicable standard of care and show that those deficiencies were a substantial, but-for cause of the injury.
The opinion also confirms that when a trial court grants summary judgment without identifying its ground, an appellate court will affirm if any ground asserted in the motion is meritorious.