Dallas Partners Secure Take Nothing Judgment for Negligence Claims of $1.5M on Appeal

Dallas partners Barry Moscowitz and Cassie Dallas obtained a take nothing judgment for their building products supplier client when the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas reversed the trial court and jury award for claims of negligence.

Background

The case began when Plaintiff, a temporary worker, was severely injured at a Texas facility and sued both the facility and the parent company for various negligence-based causes of action, including premises liability and products liability. Plaintiff dropped claims against facility and proceeded to trial against the parent company on the negligence-based causes of action only. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the Plaintiff, assessing 5% fault to Plaintiff and 95% to parent company defendant, and awarding more than $1.5 million in damages. The trial court entered judgment consistent with the verdict and denied the parent company’s post-verdict motions.

The parent company appealed on five issues, arguing that (1) the trial court erred in submitting general negligence and negligent undertaking claims to the jury; (2) Plaintiff’s claims were barred by the exclusive remedy of the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act; (3) the evidence was legally and factually insufficient to support jury’s award of future medical expenses; (4) the trial court erred in denying Defendant’s motion to designate the facility as a responsible third party and refusing to submit facility’s proportionate responsibility to the jury; and (5) the trial court erred in refusing to submit jury questions and instructions on the application of the exclusive remedy defense and whether Defendant exercised control over the specific safety aspects that led to Plaintiff’s injury.

Appeals Court Reviews Legal Duty Element in Negligence Cause of Action

The Court of Appeals reversed and rendered a take-nothing judgment. In its Opinion, the Court addressed the first issue, noting that a negligence cause of action has three elements (1) a legal duty, (2) breach of that duty, and (3) damages proximately resulting from the breach. In determining the legal duty, they stated that parent corporations generally have no duty to control their subsidiaries and that the Plaintiff needed to show that the Defendant exercised specific control over the specific aspects of safety at the facility that caused Plaintiff’s injuries. Despite the evidence from Plaintiff that Defendant set safety goals, conducted safety audits, and issued a safety manual, which reflected a general commitment to workplace safety, the Court concluded that the Plaintiffs failed to provide any evidence that the parent company exercised actual control over the specific aspects of safety at the facility that led to Plaintiff’s injury.

After thoroughly reviewing the record, the Court of Appeals held that Defendant did not have a duty to the Plaintiff, reversed the judgment of the trial court, and rendered a take nothing judgment for Plaintiff against Defendant.