Jerry Roberson v. Ronald Shackelford, 07-20-00145-CV

Background

Neighboring Plainview properties: Roberson owns 1014 Ash and wholly owns JQ Long Roofing; Shackelford leased nearby BNSF property with a wood/tin Quonset barn that burned March 18, 2013.
Three laborers (Ortiz, Ruiz, Pena), who worked for JQ Long Roofing and sometimes for Roberson personally, burned debris in two 55‑gal barrels in the abandoned railroad right‑of‑way on March 15, 2013.
Fire destroyed Shackelford’s building on March 18; investigators (Fire Chief Powers and fire marshal/investigator Mize) found a hot barrel near the southeast corner and burn patterns pointing from that barrel to the building.
Experts opined the southeast barrel was the point of origin and that a five‑gallon bucket of water was insufficient to fully extinguish embers, which could smolder and later ignite when fanned by wind.
Shackelford sued Roberson individually for negligence (direct and respondeat superior/alter‑ego theories); trial court found the workers had not properly extinguished the barrel fire and entered judgment for $70,000.
Roberson appealed, arguing (1) insufficient evidence of individual liability, (2) expert testimony was speculative/conclusory, (3) insufficient evidence that the March 15 barrel fire was incompletely extinguished, and (4) insufficient evidence that that incomplete extinguishment proximately caused the March 18 fire.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Legal/factual sufficiency to support judgment against Roberson individually	Roberson supervised/paid the cleanup; workers acted for him; evidence showed individual responsibility	Workers acted for JQ Long Roofing; Roberson not personally liable; insufficient proof of individual capacity liability or veil‑piercing	Affirmed: evidence legally and factually sufficient to support individual liability; court need not decide alter‑ego/consent theories
2. Whether expert testimony was speculative/conclusory and inadmissible	Experts’ opinions on origin and inadequate extinguishment were proper and explained by observations	Experts assumed disputed facts, failed to rule out third‑party ignition, and gave unsupported conclusions	Partially sustained: experts’ opinions that the workers specifically caused the March 18 fire were conclusory; but admission did not require reversal of judgment
3. Sufficiency that March 15 fire in southeast barrel was incompletely extinguished	Fire patterns, hot barrel readings, and expert testimony supported that the barrel was still ignited/smoldering	Workers testified they extinguished fires with five gallons and checked barrels; barrels may not have been that full	Overruled: court found competent evidence that the southeast barrel was not fully extinguished
4. Sufficiency that incompletely extinguished barrel proximately caused March 18 fire	Embers + wind + burn pattern from barrel to building established cause in fact and foreseeability	Evidence required stacking inferences; third‑party relighting plausible and not ruled out	Overruled: evidence supported proximate cause; third‑party theory was not proven to be a superseding new, independent act

Key Cases Cited

City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (legal‑ and factual‑sufficiency standards and review of evidence favoring factfinder)
Coastal Transp. Co. v. Crown Central Petroleum Corp., 136 S.W.3d 227 (Tex. 2004) (expert opinion must be more than ipse dixit; methodology and basis required)
Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc. v. Merrell, 313 S.W.3d 837 (Tex. 2010) (expert’s failure to disprove alternatives can render causation opinion speculative)
BMC Software Belgium, N.V. v. Marchand, 83 S.W.3d 789 (Tex. 2002) (bench‑trial findings and legal review principles)
Catalina v. Blasdel, 881 S.W.2d 295 (Tex. 1994) (weight of trial court findings in nonjury trials)
IHS Cedars Treatment Ctr. of Desoto, Texas, Inc. v. Mason, 143 S.W.3d 794 (Tex. 2003) (proximate‑cause elements: cause in fact and foreseeability)
City of San Antonio v. Pollock, 284 S.W.3d 809 (Tex. 2009) (conclusory expert opinions may be legally insufficient even if admitted)
Mack Trucks, Inc. v. Tamez, 206 S.W.3d 572 (Tex. 2006) (review of trial court’s gatekeeper discretion for expert testimony)