Who it’s for: Texans hurt by a delivery, rideshare, courier, or trucking driver who the company calls an “independent contractor.”
When to read: Right after a crash—or any time an insurer says “not our employee.”
What you’ll learn: The Texas playbook to hold companies liable anyway: negligent hiring/entrustment, ostensible (apparent) agency, and proof that shows control despite the “contractor” label.
Companies love to say, “He’s not our employee—he’s an independent contractor.” That label is not a magic shield in Texas. When a business puts unsafe drivers on the road or makes the public believe those drivers speak for the company, the law gives you several paths to full compensation. This guide breaks down those paths in plain English and shows how Ryan Orsatti Law uses them to beat the “IC” smokescreen.
The Myth: “Contractor” Means No Company Liability
Here’s the truth. Texas courts look at what the company actually does, not just what the contract says. If the company controls the details of a driver’s work or sends the driver on a company mission, it can be vicariously liable for a wreck—contract label or not. (Texas Judicial Branch)
Even when a business truly uses contractors, it can still be on the hook for its own negligence—especially negligent hiring/retention/supervision and negligent entrustment (handing the keys to someone it knew—or should have known—was unsafe). Texas law recognizes these direct-negligence claims alongside vicarious liability.
Strategy 1: Negligent Hiring, Retention & Supervision
What you must show
- The company owed a duty to use reasonable care in selecting and supervising drivers.
- It knew or should have known the driver was unsafe (red flags).
- That failure caused the crash and your injuries.
Red flags we hunt for (and how we prove them)
- Bad driving history (tickets, prior crashes, DUI, license issues).
- Missing or incomplete driver-qualification files (required for motor carriers).
- Failed or skipped drug/alcohol testing and medical qualification gaps.
- No training on distracted driving, speed management, fatigue, or load securement.
- Prior customer complaints or internal safety warnings ignored.
For regulated carriers, we use the federal safety rules as a road map: 49 CFR Part 391 (driver qualifications), applications, prior employer checks, and medical fitness. Gaps here are powerful evidence of negligent hiring. (eCFR, CSA Compliance, Safety, Accountability)
What beats the defense: Companies often argue “He had a valid license.” That’s not enough. If the record shows a pattern of unsafe behavior—or the company skipped basic vetting—Texas juries can find negligent hiring or retention.
Strategy 2: Negligent Entrustment (Handing the Keys to a Dangerous Driver)
Negligent entrustment applies when an owner or controller of a vehicle lets a driver use it even though the driver is unlicensed, incompetent, or reckless, and that misuse proximately causes the crash. Texas cases have long recognized these elements. (Fifth Circuit Court, Texas Judicial Branch)
How we prove it:
- Who owned or controlled the vehicle (title, lease, dispatch logs, app control).
- The driver’s unfitness (MVRs, prior incidents, safety points, training gaps).
- The company’s knowledge (emails, prior warnings, safety audits).
- Black box/telematics and maintenance showing systemic safety neglect.
Why it matters: Even when the company tries to hide behind a contractor agreement, entrusting its branded vehicle or app-dispatched work to a known risky driver can establish liability—no employee badge required.
Strategy 3: Ostensible (Apparent) Agency—When Branding and Control Create a Reasonable Belief
Texas recognizes that a company can be liable when its conduct leads the public to reasonably believe a driver acts for the company and the injured person relies on that appearance. Think logos, uniforms, in-app representations like “your [Company] driver,” curbside signage, or directions that make the driver the “face” of the company to customers and bystanders. The Texas Supreme Court has explained that apparent authority is based on estoppel—the company’s own manifestations can create agency. (CourtListener)
Real-world signs of ostensible agency:
- Company logos on vehicle or clothing; ID badges or branded equipment.
- In-app messaging stating a “company driver” is en route.
- Company policies dictating routes, timing, safety procedures, or acceptance/cancellation rules.
- Advertising (“our drivers,” “we deliver,” “we’ll get you there safely”).
If a company holds drivers out as its agents and benefits from the public’s trust, it shouldn’t get to disown them after a crash.
Strategy 4: Special-Mission & Right-to-Control (Beating “Not in Our Scope”)
Even with employees, companies argue “the driver was off the clock.” Texas’s special-mission and right-to-controldoctrines can keep the case alive when the driver was performing a task for the company’s benefit or the company retained the right to control the details that mattered to safety. (Texas Judicial Branch)
Proof we gather: dispatch instructions, timing requirements, route mandates, acceptance/cancellation penalties, performance metrics, safety compliance audits, and communications showing the driver was furthering the company’s business at the time of the crash.
The Evidence Plan (Our First 30 Days)
We move fast to lock down proof before it disappears.
Preservation & collection
- Spoliation/preservation letter covering: driver-qualification file (Part 391), MVRs, prior incidents, hours-of-service logs, drug/alcohol testing records, training files, safety manuals, incident reviews, telematics (speed/braking), dashcam, cell-phone logs, app data (dispatch, acceptance, route, delivery timestamps), branding/marketing materials, and any independent-contractor agreements.
- Vehicle inspection (photos, EDR/black-box download, maintenance).
- Witness and scene evidence (911 calls, store or traffic cameras, body-cam, total station diagrams).
Subpoenas & open-records: police crash reports, prior citations, and any state/federal safety data tied to the driver/company.
Common Defenses—and How We Counter Them
“Independent contractor—case closed.”
No. Direct negligence (hiring/retention/entrustment) stands independent of employment status, and ostensible agency and right-to-control can still impose liability. (Texas Judicial Branch)
“He had a valid license.”
We show the full safety picture: prior wrecks, violations, fatigue risks, training gaps, or missing Part 391 files. A license alone doesn’t equal a safe, qualified driver. (eCFR)
“Our policies say safety first.”
Policies on paper aren’t immunity. We test actual compliance, enforcement, audits, and whether management ignored known risks. (Texas Judicial Branch)
“He was off duty.”
If the trip was for the company’s benefit or under its control, special-mission and scope can still apply. (Texas Judicial Branch)
What Full Value Looks Like
When we establish company responsibility, we can pursue all damages Texas law allows, including medical bills, lost wages/earning capacity, pain and suffering, physical impairment, and, when supported, punitive damages for grossly unsafe corporate conduct.
Why Ryan Orsatti Law
- Texas PI focus. We know the trucking, delivery, rideshare, and courier playbooks companies use—and how to dismantle them.
- Evidence-first approach. We chase data quickly: telematics, app logs, Part 391 files, and branding/marketing evidence that proves agency and control.
- Trial posture from Day 1. Insurers pay attention when they know the evidence will see a jury.
Related Resources on Our Site
- Crash Evidence 101: what to save right now (photos, black box, dashcam) — see our blog hub for step-by-step guides: Ryan Orsatti Law Blog.
- Car & Truck Accidents: learn how we build liability and damages in serious MVAs: Ryan Orsatti Law.
- Free Case Review: start your claim and protect the evidence: Contact Ryan Orsatti Law.
Quick FAQ
Does the company’s “independent contractor agreement” defeat my claim?
No. Texas courts look at control and conduct, not labels. You may still win with negligent hiring/entrustment or ostensible agency. (Texas Judicial Branch)
Do federal trucking rules help in non-18-wheeler cases?
Yes. Even for smaller fleets, the Part 391 framework explains reasonable vetting. Missing those basics is strong evidence of negligence. (eCFR)
What if the driver used a personal car?
We ask who controlled dispatch, routes, and branding—and whether the company entrusted work to a risky driver. Those facts can still trigger liability.
One Authoritative Source
Want the rulebook companies are supposed to follow when hiring drivers? See the federal Driver Qualificationsrequirements (49 C.F.R. Part 391). (eCFR)
Local, Zero-Pressure Help (San Antonio & South Texas)
Ryan Orsatti Law
4634 De Zavala Road │ San Antonio, TX 78249
T. 210.525.1200
Free consultation. No fee unless we win. We’ll secure the evidence, identify every liable company, and push for the maximum settlement—not just from the driver, but from the business that put them on the road.
Legal notes (for the curious): Texas cases explain (1) right-to-control and special-mission for vicarious liability, (2) apparent authority based on estoppel, and (3) the limits of “paper-only” policies. See, e.g., Painter v. Amerimex Drilling I, Ltd. (right-to-control/special-mission) and Baptist Memorial Hosp. Sys. v. Sampson (apparent authority). (Texas Judicial Branch, CourtListener)