Flying J Inc. v. Meda, Inc. D/B/A AAA Auger
373 S.W.3d 680
| Tex. App. | 2012Background
- Meda, Inc. sued Flying J, Inc. for breach of contract; Flying J counterclaimed for breach of contract, implied warranty, and negligence.
- Meda and Flying J contracted to repair a water line; the water line lay in the same trench as a diesel line; Meda warned to move it but Flying J refused.
- During June 2002 repairs, a backhoe was used near the diesel line, puncturing it and causing diesel leakage; the volume of leakage was disputed.
- Meda completed subsequent work to move the water line; Flying J refused payment for post-June 2002 work, claiming damages exceeded plumbing fees.
- The trial court directed verdict against Flying J on the breach-of-contract and implied-warranty claims; the jury awarded Meda for breach of contract; the jury apportioned 80% fault to Flying J and 20% to Meda for negligence; the court entered judgment accordingly.
- On appeal, Flying J challenged directed verdicts, court comments on evidence, implied-warranty issues, and sufficiency of the negligence/fault findings; the court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the contract claim was properly directed to the jury. | Flying J contends Meda breached contract; the diesel line damage supports contract claim. | Meda’s duties arose under the contract; damages tied to contract performance. | No reversible error; contract claim sounds in tort, not contract. |
| Whether the court impermissibly commented on the weight of the evidence by including invoice amounts in the jury questions. | Inclusion of invoice amounts showed the court’s opinion on damages. | Invoices were undisputed and admissible; no improper weight commentary. | No reversible error; charging was not a direct comment on weight. |
| Whether the directed verdict and failure to submit the implied-warranty claim were proper. | Meda presented evidence of breach of implied warranty; jury should decide. | Fault allocation bars recovery under an implied warranty if 50%+ fault; record supports directed verdict. | Directed verdict was improper, but recovery barred by comparative fault; submission denial upheld as harmless. |
| Whether the verdict on negligence and fault apportionment was legally and factually sufficient. | Evidence supports Flying J’s 80% fault for damage to the diesel line. | Evidence supports Meda’s negligence; but Flying J’s 80% fault precludes recovery. | Yes, both legally and factually sufficient to support 80/20 apportionment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Exxon Corp. v. Emerald Oil & Gas Co., L.C., 348 S.W.3d 194 (Tex. 2011) (directed verdict standard; evidence viewed in light favorable to non-mover of verdict)
- DeLanney v. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co., 809 S.W.2d 493 (Tex. 1991) (two-part test for whether claim sounds in tort or contract)
- Jim Walter Homes, Inc. v. Reed, 711 S.W.2d 617 (Tex. 1986) (contract and tort duties may coexist; injury determines which duty breached)
- Goose Creek Consol. Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Jarrar’s Plumbing, Inc., 74 S.W.3d 486 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2002) (injury to property not within subject matter of contract may support tort claim)
- Melody Home Mfg. Co. v. Barnes, 741 S.W.2d 349 (Tex. 1987) (implied warranty of good and workmanlike service; cannot be waived; liability rules)