Df - Murray Guard
Appellants, Debbie Esquivel appeal from the trial court's order
granting summary judgment in favor of appellee, Murray Guard,
Inc. ("Murray Guard").
Esquivel brings three points of error, contending the trial court erred
in (1) granting summary judgment in favor of Murray Guard on her
tort claim; (2) granting summary judgment in favor of Murray
Guard on her contract claim; and (3) requiring her to file a
supersedeas bond for taxable court costs.
On June 19, 1994, Debbie Esquivel rented
a hotel room at the Baytown La Quinta.
She asked the clerk where she
could park a rented U-Haul moving van containing personal
property and towing her car.
A clerk told her to park on the street
adjacent to the hotel and assured her the van would be
safe "because of the security it provided."
The next day, Esquivel's van and car
Esquivel sued La Quinta for negligence
breach of warranty, breach of contract, and violations of the
Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA), believing La
Quinta was the sole provider of security.
During the course of discovery, Esquivel
learned that Murray
Guard provided security
to the La Quinta in question.
She joined Murray Guard on August 30,
1996, and Murray Guard filed a motion for summary judgment
asserting that the statute of
limitations had run and that the discovery rule did not
The court granted the motion and
severed Murray Guard.
A supersedeas bond is a type of surety bond that a court requires from
an appellant who wants to delay payment of a judgment until the
appeal is over.
Claims there is a genuine issue of material fact that exists as to
whether La Quinta and Murray Guard enter into a joint
Argues that under the joint enterprise rule, her joinder to Murray
related back to the date she
sued La Quinta.
The joint enterprise rule is not used as a relation-back method.
Theory of joint
The theory of joint enterprise is to
make each party the agent of the other and thereby to hold each
responsible for the negligent act of the other.
An employer/employee relationship would not qualify as a joint
enterprise because there
is no mutuality of control-
the employer has control over
the employee and usually is responsible for the actions
within the course and scope of his job, but the
employee does not have the right to
control the employer.
In this case
La Quinta controls the keys given to the security guard.
Murray Guard receives an hourly rate from La Quinta.
The statement of work establishes the security guards duties.
There is no pecuniary [relating to money] interests.