George v. SI Grp
36 F.4th 611
5th Cir.2022Background
- James George, a Veolia technician, suffered severe burns when a full tanker-trailer tipped after a landing-gear leg sank into gravel, releasing ~200°F water through an open manway onto him.
- SI Group owned the Freeport plant and supplied the tanker-trailers; Evergreen Tank Solutions owned/leased the trailers; Bulk Tank International manufactured (did not appear); Bulk Solutions distributed; Brenner Tank participated in design.
- George pleaded products-liability claims (design and marketing/warning defects) against the trailer designer/manufacturer/distributor and a premises-defect claim against SI Group.
- The district court dismissed products-liability claims (Rule 12(b)(6)) as to Bulk Solutions and Brenner Tank and dismissed Evergreen on Chapter 82 grounds; it granted summary judgment to SI Group on the premises claim, applying Texas Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §95 (requiring owner actual knowledge/control).
- On appeal the Fifth Circuit (1) reversed the 12(b)(6) dismissals for Bulk Solutions and Brenner Tank because the district court improperly relied on extra-pleading evidence and mischaracterized claims, (2) affirmed dismissal of Evergreen as a nonmanufacturing-seller immune under Chapter 82, and (3) reversed summary judgment for SI Group because Chapter 95 did not apply to a hot-water wash and remanded for analysis under Texas common law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court properly resolved products-liability claims at Rule 12(b)(6) | George pleaded plausible design and marketing/warning defects by designer/distributor/manufacturer (insufficient warnings about unhitched trailers on unpaved ground; inadequate landing-gear design). | District court contended complaint lacked factual plausibility and relied on absence of data/inspections to dismiss. | Reversed as to Bulk Solutions and Brenner Tank: district court improperly considered outside evidence and mischaracterized plaintiff’s claims; remand for proper 12(b)(6) analysis. |
| Whether Evergreen (owner/lessor) is liable under Texas products-liability law | George argued Evergreen bore responsibility as owner/lessor and that manufacturer was nonresident so exception to seller immunity applied. | Evergreen argued Chapter 82 immunizes nonmanufacturing sellers; exception in §82.003(a)(7)(B) inapplicable because other named defendants qualify as manufacturers and have appeared. | Affirmed dismissal of Evergreen: immune as nonmanufacturing seller because other named defendants are manufacturers who have appeared. |
| Whether Chapter 95 (owner liability limitations) governed premises-defect claim | George contended he was performing a hot-water wash, not constructing/repairing/renovating/modifying the tank, so Chapter 95 should not apply; common-law standard governs. | SI Group argued Chapter 95 applied to injuries arising from condition/use of an improvement to real property (the tank). | Reversed summary judgment: Chapter 95 does not apply because hot-water washing is not "constructing/repairing/renovating/modifying" the tank; remanded for common-law premises-defect analysis (control and knowledge). |
| Admissibility of hearsay evidence that underground leak existed (Muñoz testimony) | George offered Muñoz’s testimony that he overheard SI Group employees say a nearby fire monitor had been out of service because of an underground leak—argued this could be a party-opponent admission or otherwise admissible. | SI Group and dissent argued the statements are inadmissible unidentified hearsay (not shown to be employees/agents acting in scope) and insufficient to create a genuine dispute. | Remanded: court declined to rule finally on admissibility; instructed district court to determine whether Muñoz’s testimony constitutes an opposing-party admission or otherwise admissible evidence under the rules; no definitive appellate ruling on admissibility. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (establishes pleading plausibility standard)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must state a plausible claim)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary-judgment standard: genuine dispute if reasonable jury could find for nonmovant)
- Los Compadres Pescadores, L.L.C. v. Valdez, 622 S.W.3d 771 (Tex. 2021) (discussion of owner duty and scope of Chapter 95)
- Ineos USA, L.L.C. v. Elmgren, 505 S.W.3d 555 (Tex. 2016) (common-law standard: owner control + knew or reasonably should have known)
- Brand Coupon Network, L.L.C. v. Catalina Mktg. Corp., 748 F.3d 631 (5th Cir. 2014) (limits on district court considering extra-pleading evidence on 12(b)(6))
- C & C Inv. Props., L.L.C. v. Trustmark Nat’l Bank, 838 F.3d 655 (5th Cir. 2016) (Rule 12(b)(6) may consider certain documents outside the complaint only in narrow circumstances)
- Davis v. Mobil Oil Expl. & Producing Se., Inc., 864 F.2d 1171 (5th Cir. 1989) (admissibility of unidentified declarant as employer-agent admission)