Shipper Liability for Motor-Carrier Accidents: In re Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.

A family member was killed when a commercial truck ran a red light. The truck was hauling goods for a large retailer. Can the retailer be held responsible along with the trucking company?

The Supreme Court of Texas addressed that question in In re Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 735 S.W.3d 719 (Tex. 2026) (orig. proceeding). A motorcyclist died in Harris County when a tractor-trailer operated by Werner Enterprises allegedly accelerated through a yellow light and ran a red one. The truck was carrying Home Depot merchandise between stores under a commercial shipping arrangement. The motorcyclist’s parents and estate sued Werner, its driver, and Home Depot, alleging that Home Depot had negligently selected Werner as a carrier despite a safety record that included more than 850 reportable collisions in the preceding two years and various federal violations. Home Depot moved to dismiss under Rule 91a on the ground that, as a shipper, it owed no duty to the motoring public. The trial court denied the motion and the court of appeals denied mandamus. The Supreme Court conditionally granted mandamus and directed the trial court to dismiss the claims against Home Depot.

The Court began from two settled rules. First, “one generally has no duty to control the conduct of another,” absent a special relationship, control over the actor or instrumentality, or conduct by the defendant that creates or increases the risk. Id. at 723. Second, one who hires an independent contractor is generally not liable for the contractor’s torts, subject to narrow exceptions for retained control, nondelegable duties, and inherently dangerous work. Id. The plaintiffs did not plead facts fitting any exception: Home Depot did not own or operate the truck, employ or supervise the driver, direct the route, or supply any instrumentality, and nothing about the cargo was alleged to be unusual, hazardous, or improperly loaded. Id. at 722–23.

The plaintiffs framed their claim as one of “direct” negligence — negligent selection of an incompetent carrier — rather than vicarious liability. The Court noted that it has never definitively recognized a claim for negligent hiring of an independent contractor, and that even if such a claim exists, it is derivative: it requires both the hiring party’s negligence and the contractor’s subsequent negligent act. Id. at 724. The theory here went a step further — that Home Depot negligently hired Werner, which negligently hired a negligent driver — which the Court described as “liability twice removed.” Id. Even assuming the theory’s validity, the Court concluded Home Depot had no duty to investigate Werner’s competence, because the shipment presented no unusual risk and Home Depot neither controlled the actors nor created the risk that materialized. Id.

Two further considerations informed the analysis. On foreseeability, the Court observed that the risk to the motoring public “existed independently of Home Depot’s shipment and arose only from Werner’s conduct as a motor carrier”: Werner’s trucks would have been on the road regardless, “carrying Home Depot’s goods, other cargo, or nothing at all.” Id. at 724–25. And on the regulatory setting, the Court pointed to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s oversight of operating authority, insurance, driver qualification, hours of service, and safety compliance, reasoning that where cargo poses no inherent risk, “private parties should not be required to duplicate that comprehensive federal safety regime or qualitatively evaluate and rank the safety fitness of more than a million regulated carriers before engaging in routine commerce.” Id. at 725. A shipper of ordinary goods, the Court said, “should ordinarily be entitled to rely on the carrier to conduct business lawfully and to utilize proper equipment.” Id.

The Court was careful to distinguish United Rentals North America, Inc. v. Evans, 668 S.W.3d 627 (Tex. 2023), in which a shipper was held to owe a duty to motorists after its own employees loaded oversized equipment onto an incompatible trailer without the required permit and failed to tell the carrier. That case involved “affirmative acts that create a danger on a public highway.” 735 S.W.3d at 726. Here, by contrast, Home Depot’s goods “were but a passenger: onboard but uninvolved in the accident.” Id.

The opinion appears to leave several questions open. It addresses a “passive shipper of unremarkable goods” moving under a federally licensed carrier’s own authority, and says nothing about brokers or other intermediaries, about cargo that is hazardous or oversized, or about a shipper that directs the route, loading, or manner of operation. It also does not decide whether Texas recognizes a freestanding negligent-hiring claim against one who engages an independent contractor — a question the Court has now flagged more than once without resolving.

For the families of people killed or seriously injured in commercial-vehicle collisions, the decision suggests that the responsible parties in the ordinary case will be the driver and the motor carrier, and that a retailer or manufacturer whose freight happened to be on the truck will not be a defendant unless its own conduct contributed to the risk. Where the facts involve a broker that selected the carrier, a shipper that controlled the loading or the route, or cargo that was itself dangerous, the analysis may be different, and early investigation of who arranged the shipment and on what terms may matter a great deal.

Related: our practice page on severe and catastrophic injury.