Relating to civil liability of a commercial motor vehicle owner or operator.
Summary
SB 39 amends Texas civil liability law for commercial motor vehicle owners and operators. The bill narrows when an employer defendant can be held liable for damages caused by a driver’s ordinary negligence by requiring liability to be based only on respondeat superior if the employer stipulates that the driver was its employee and was acting within the scope of employment at the time of the collision. In practical terms, that means the case can proceed against the employer on a vicarious-liability theory without litigating certain direct-negligence claims tied to the driver’s conduct in the first phase of a bifurcated trial.
The bill also clarifies that claimants may still pursue independent negligence claims against the employer, such as negligent maintenance, negligent repair, or negligent loading, when those claims do not depend on proving the employee-driver was negligent. It preserves the ability to seek exemplary damages under Chapter 41 for the employer’s conduct or omissions related to the collision. The act applies to new cases filed on or after September 1, 2025, and to some pending cases whose trials begin on or after that date, while trials already underway remain governed by prior law.
Impact
SB 39 would amend Sections 72.054 and related provisions of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code governing civil actions involving commercial motor vehicles. It removes several existing subsections and limits the evidence and claims that may be presented in the first phase of a bifurcated trial when an employer stipulates to employment and scope of employment. The bill is designed to streamline litigation by channeling employer liability into respondeat superior in specified circumstances, while preserving independent negligence and punitive-damages claims that do not require proof of the driver’s negligence as a prerequisite.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests the bill advanced with majority support, including passage on third reading by a 23-8 vote, and earlier procedural votes also favored moving the bill forward. No committee transcript is available, so the record does not show detailed debate, but the vote margins indicate generally favorable sentiment among a majority of legislators. The bill’s referral to Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence is consistent with its focus on civil liability and trial procedure.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely the bill’s restriction on plaintiffs’ ability to pursue certain direct-negligence theories against motor carrier employers, especially claims like negligent entrustment that depend on proving the employee-driver’s negligence. Supporters appear to favor limiting duplicative litigation and focusing employer liability on respondeat superior once employment and scope are admitted, while opponents may view the bill as narrowing plaintiffs’ leverage and reducing avenues to hold commercial motor vehicle employers accountable. The bill preserves independent negligence claims and exemplary damages, which may have been intended to address concerns that it overly shields employers.