In Rodriguez v. Naylor Indus., Inc., 763 S.W.2d 411 (Tex. 1989), Juan Rodriguez was employed by Naylor Industries. He was told to drive a truck from Rockport, Texas to Port Lavaca and then to Corpus Christi. Rodriguez, 763 S.W.2d at 412. Before departing for this trip, Rodriguez examined the tires on the truck and discovered that they had no tread and were cracked. Id. Rodriguez reported the condition of the tires to his supervisor, but was told that he could either drive the truck as instructed, in its then-existing condition, or give up his job. Id. Rodriguez decided to drive the truck and upon doing so, one of the front tires blew out. Id. Another Naylor supervisor instructed Rodriguez to replace the blown-out tire with one of the four tires attached to the back axle. Id. Rodriguez again objected, but the second supervisor told him to continue until he could obtain a new tire. Proceeding in that condition, Rodriguez was injured when one of the rear tires blew out, causing the truck to flip over. Id. His wife brought an action to recover for Naylor's intentional conduct in causing Rodriguez's injuries. Naylor brought a motion for summary judgment based on Rodriguez's deposition testimony that "he did not know of any reason that anyone at Naylor would want to see him injured." Id. at 413. The trial court granted summary judgment. Id. at 412. On review, the supreme court noted that "just as an employee's lack of awareness is not conclusive on the issue of an employer's intent, neither is an employer's statement that he had no subjective intent to injure an employee." Id. The court acknowledged that Rodriguez's wife had presented two affidavits, one of a former Naylor supervisor who had personal knowledge of the truck in question, and one of an experienced accident reconstructionist. Both affiants averred that "if the truck were driven in the condition described by Juan Rodriguez, his supervisor at Naylor would be substantially certain that the blowout would occur." Id. The former Naylor supervisor added that "a supervisor would also be substantially certain that the blowout would cause the truck to go out of control." Id. The supreme court determined that this evidence was sufficient to create a fact question and warranted reversal of the summary judgment.