SB 39 proposes revisions to the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code that govern civil liability in cases involving commercial motor vehicles (CMVs). The bill targets lawsuits where an employee of a commercial motor vehicle company causes an accident while acting within the scope of their employment. Under current law, plaintiffs can often introduce evidence of both employee and employer negligence (such as negligent hiring or supervision) even when the employer acknowledges responsibility through the principle of respondeat superior. SB 39 modifies this structure to streamline legal proceedings and reduce duplicative or prejudicial claims in such cases.
Specifically, the bill amends Sections 72.054(a), (b), and (f) of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code and repeals Sections 72.054(c), (d), and (e). If the employer defendant stipulates that the driver was acting as their employee and within the scope of employment at the time of the accident, the employer’s liability for ordinary negligence is limited to the actions of the employee. In such cases, evidence regarding employer conduct such as negligent entrustment or training, cannot be introduced in the initial phase of a bifurcated trial. However, plaintiffs retain the right to present claims based on the employer’s independent acts of negligence (e.g., vehicle maintenance failures) and may seek exemplary (punitive) damages in the appropriate phase of a trial.
The intent of sb 39 is to reduce litigation costs, prevent redundant or prejudicial claims, and create a clearer procedural framework for handling CMV-related lawsuits. The bill aims to uphold fairness in the courtroom while also protecting commercial operators from excessive legal exposure when fault and liability are already conceded.
The originally filed version of SB 39 primarily focused on restricting evidence in civil lawsuits involving commercial motor vehicle (CMV) accidents. It established that when an employer admits liability for an employee’s conduct under the doctrine of respondeat superior, plaintiffs would be prohibited from introducing evidence of certain employer negligence claims, such as negligent entrustment or supervision, during the first phase of a bifurcated trial. The bill also amended Section 72.053 to narrowly define the circumstances under which evidence of regulatory or safety standard violations could be introduced, requiring a clear link to proximate cause and relevance to a specific duty of care.
In contrast, the Committee Substitute for SB 39 builds on the same foundational concept but modifies the approach for clarity and balance. It removes the proposed amendments to Section 72.053 entirely, thereby avoiding overly complex evidentiary thresholds that might limit a plaintiff's ability to demonstrate wrongdoing. Instead, it concentrates revisions on Section 72.054 and clarifies that while claims like negligent entrustment are excluded from the first trial phase when liability is stipulated, plaintiffs retain the ability to bring forward independent claims against employers, such as negligent maintenance or repair, that are not contingent upon employee fault. Additionally, it explicitly preserves a plaintiff's right to seek exemplary damages in the second trial phase.
The Committee Substitute reflects a more refined and practical approach. By removing changes to broader evidentiary rules and maintaining avenues for independent negligence and punitive claims, the substitute version is more likely to withstand legal scrutiny and maintain access to justice. The result is a bill that seeks procedural efficiency without undermining accountability or narrowing claimants' rights more than necessary.
