Daniel E. Arnold v. Gerardo Gonzalez
13-13-00440-CV
Tex. App.Nov 10, 2015Background
- Plaintiff Gerardo Gonzalez, an employee of A–W Produce, was injured when his right arm was caught in an unguarded conveyor at an A–W warehouse; A–W paid workers’ compensation benefits.
- Defendant Daniel E. Arnold is president of A–W, individually owned the warehouse (leased to A–W), and performed some design/setup of the machinery; parties disputed whether he acted as A–W’s agent/employee when the acts occurred.
- Plaintiff sued Arnold individually for premises-liability/negligence as the premises owner; the trial jury found negligence and apportioned 65% fault to Arnold, 20% to A–W, and awarded substantial damages; trial court rendered judgment against Arnold (jointly and severally).
- Arnold asserted the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act (TWCA) §408.001 exclusive-remedy defense (shielding employer, agents, and employees from common-law tort suits for work-related injuries); trial court denied summary judgment and refused to submit Arnold’s requested jury question on right-of-control.
- The Thirteenth Court of Appeals affirmed, holding Arnold waived the exclusive-remedy defense by failing to obtain a jury finding that he acted within the course and scope of employment; Arnold petitioned the Texas Supreme Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether TWCA §408.001 bars Gonzalez’s suit against Arnold individually (dual-capacity theory) | Gonzalez: He sued Arnold only as premises owner, not as employer/agent, so exclusive remedy doesn’t apply | Arnold: TWCA bars suits against the employer and its agents/employees for work-related injuries; no dual-capacity exception exists | Court of Appeals affirmed without reaching merits based on waiver; petitioner argues the statute’s plain text bars the claim and dual-capacity is rejected by Texas precedent |
| Whether Arnold waived the exclusive-remedy defense by not obtaining a jury finding he acted in course and scope | Gonzalez: failure to obtain course-and-scope finding waives the defense | Arnold: Issue was undisputed, stipulated, and conclusively established; statute does not require such a jury finding | Court of Appeals held waiver; petitioner contends this conflicts with Altenburg and rules on undisputed/conclusive issues (T.O. Stanley, Brown) |
| Whether trial court erred by refusing Arnold’s right-of-control jury question (PJC 66.3) | Gonzalez: question inapplicable except when independent contractor is involved | Arnold: right-of-control is an essential element in premises-liability and landlord/tenant contexts; question was supported by pleadings/evidence | Court of Appeals affirmed denial; petitioner argues refusal was error and omission of essential element entitles him to rendering or new trial |
| Whether defendant can be held jointly and severally liable under §33.013(b) when a responsible third party (A–W) is immune under TWCA | Gonzalez: joint-and-several liability proper when defendant’s fault >50% even if employer is immune | Arnold: unfair to impose joint/several when employer cannot be made to pay; challenges application | Court of Appeals upheld joint-and-several liability under §33.013(b) where defendant’s share >50% |
Key Cases Cited
- Western Steel Co. v. Altenburg, 206 S.W.3d 121 (Tex. 2006) (appellate courts should not affirm on legal grounds not raised by parties; reversal where court of appeals did so)
- Port Elevator–Brownsville, L.L.C. v. Casados, 358 S.W.3d 238 (Tex. 2012) (read exclusive-remedy statutory text; exceptions to a statute should not be implied)
- Payne v. Galen Hosp. Corp., 28 S.W.3d 15 (Tex. 2000) (discusses and rejects dual-capacity doctrine in Texas and surveys other jurisdictions)
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (standards for reviewing sufficiency and jury credibility; undisputed/conclusive evidence rules)
- T.O. Stanley Boot Co. v. Bank of El Paso, 847 S.W.2d 218 (Tex. 1992) (no jury finding required on undisputed issue)
- Iliff v. Iliff, 339 S.W.3d 74 (Tex. 2011) (courts must not engraft conditions into statute beyond legislative text)
- Entergy Gulf States, Inc. v. Summers, 282 S.W.3d 433 (Tex. 2009) (public policy favoring workers’ compensation coverage and importance of exclusive-remedy protection)