Jason Jenkins v. Occidental Chemical Corporation, 415 S.W.3d 14

Background

Jenkins injured in 2006 at Occidental's Bayport plant when an acid-addition system sprayed acid, allegedly designed by Occidental.
The acid-addition system was installed in 1992; Ackerman conceived the design but was not a licensed engineer, while a third-party firm drafted the detailed plans and a contractor installed the system.
Occidental pleaded statutes of repose (16.008 for licensed engineers; 16.009 for constructors) as defenses after a two-week trial, with the jury finding the system was an improvement designed under supervision of an engineer.
The trial court entered a take-nothing judgment based on the repose defenses; Jenkins’s liability and damages findings were superseded.
The court holds that neither repose statute applies, rejects alternative grounds offered by Occidental, and remands for entry of judgment consistent with the jury’s liability and damages findings.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether §16.008 applies given design supervision by a licensed engineer	Jenkins argues 16.008 doesn’t apply because Occidental wasn’t a licensed engineer and supervision alone isn’t enough	Occidental contends supervisory role suffices to invoke 16.008	16.008 does not apply; supervision alone does not invoke the statute.
Whether §16.009 bars Jenkins’s claim	Jenkins contends the claim arises from negligent design, not construction	Occidental argues it constructed or repaired an improvement	§16.009 does not bar the claim; Occidental did not construct or repair the improvement.
Whether premises liability or products-liability theories govern; and whether the statute of limitations bars claim	Jenkins asserts design negligence; not premises defect or strict products liability	Occidental argues premises-defect/limitations defenses	Court rejects premises-defect and products-liability cross-arguments; remands for judgment on design-negligence liability.

Key Cases Cited

Sonnier v. Chisholm-Ryder Co., Inc., 909 S.W.2d 475 (Tex. 1995) (distinguishes 16.008 vs 16.009 protection)
Texaco, Inc. v. Pennzoil, Co., 729 S.W.2d 768 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1987) (affirmative defense burdens and jury findings under statute of repose)
Texas Gas Exploration Corp. v. Fluor Corp., 828 S.W.2d 28 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1991) (retroactivity/estoppel context for repose statutes)
Sowders v. M.W. Kellogg Co., 663 S.W.2d 644 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1983) (supervision/engineer involvement in design discussed)
McCulloch v. Fox & Jacobs, Inc., 696 S.W.2d 918 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1985) (prior version of §16.009; contractor/general contractor discussion)
Reames v. Hawthorne-Seving, Inc., 949 S.W.2d 758 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1997) (general contractor responsibility & section 16.009 context)
Fuentes v. Continental Conveyor & Equipment Co., Inc., 63 S.W.3d 518 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2001) (supervision/ultimate responsibility analysis under §16.009)
Palmer v. Espey Huston & Assocs., Inc., 84 S.W.3d 345 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2002) (negligence design against non-manufacturer)
Allen Keller Co. v. Foreman, 343 S.W.3d 420 (Tex. 2011) (duty of care standards for premises vs other design duties)
Keetch v. Kroger Co., 845 S.W.2d 262 (Tex. 1992) (premises liability vs negligent activity duty distinctions)
New Texas Auto Auction Services, L.P. v. Gomez De Hernandez, 249 S.W.3d 400 (Tex. 2008) (stream-of-commerce concept in strict liability context)
McDaniel v. Cont’l Apartments Joint Venture, 887 S.W.2d 167 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1994) (premises-related injury involving design/repair context)
Wyckoff v. George C. Fuller Contracting Co., 357 S.W.3d 157 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2011) (premises liability duty extension discussions (rehearing))