Knife River Corp.-South v. Hinojosa
2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 2816
| Tex. App. | 2014Background
- Andres Hinojosa died in a tractor-trailer rollover on Highway 105 after his right front tire dropped into an existing drop-off near a box culvert.
- The drop-off and culvert area were near a 4.5 mile resurfacing project Knife River completed for TxDOT in 2005.
- Project plans required backfilling to achieve a 3:1 gradient but extending the culvert to accomplish this was outside the contract scope.
- Records showed Knife River could not legally extend the culvert within the contract; doing so would have required a TxDOT change order.
- Appellee alleged negligent-undertaking under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 324A, claiming Knife River failed to warn/rectify the drop-off or notify TxDOT as part of the undertaking to protect the third party (Hinojosa).
- The trial court denied Knife River’s directed-verdict motion; the jury apportioned 5% fault to Knife River and 95% to TxDOT, later adjusted by the trial court to render Knife River liable for all damages against it.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in denying a directed verdict on negligent-undertaking under § 324A. | Knife River had no duty to rectify or warn; no undertaking to third parties existed. | Appellee proved an undertaking by Knife River to rectify the drop-off and warn or notify TxDOT under the contract. | Directed verdict for Knife River granted; no duty under § 324A established. |
Key Cases Cited
- Torrington Co. v. Stutzman, 46 S.W.3d 829 (Tex. 2000) (duty analysis; negligence requirements for undertakings)
- SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Doe, 903 S.W.2d 347 (Tex. 1995) (duty principles and general lack of duty to act absent special relationships)
- Lowe's Home Ctrs., Inc. v. GSW Mktg., Inc., 293 S.W.3d 283 (Tex. App.—Hou. [14th Dist.] 2009) (undertaking liability limited to tasks undertaken; scope of duty)
- Nall v. Plunkett, 404 S.W.3d 552 (Tex. 2013) (critical inquiry whether undertaking imposes new duty)
- Poynor v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, 441 S.W.3d 315 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2013) (analysis of § 324A(a) and increased risk of harm)
- Sbrusch v. Fort Bend Cnty. Drainage Dist., 818 S.W.2d 392 (Tex. 1991) (outline of duty arising from undertaking)