Occidental Chemical Corp. v. Jenkins
478 S.W.3d 640
| Tex. | 2016Background
- Jenkins, an employee of Equistar, was injured in 2006 when acid expelled from an acid-addition system at a chemical plant injured his eyes.
- Occidental designed and installed the acid-addition system in 1992 and operated it without incident until it sold the plant to Equistar in 1998; the injury occurred eight years after the sale.
- Jenkins sued Occidental for negligent design and negligent instructions; a jury found Occidental negligent and assessed damages.
- The trial court rendered judgment for Occidental based on applicability of a statute-of-repose defense; the court of appeals reversed, holding Occidental could be liable in negligence as the system’s creator even after selling the property.
- The Texas Supreme Court held that a former owner who created the dangerous condition is subject to premises-liability rules (duty tied to ownership/control), and because Occidental had no control at the time of injury, Occidental owed no duty and Jenkins takes nothing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a former property owner who created a dangerous condition can be sued in ordinary negligence after conveyance | Jenkins: creator-role allows independent negligence liability (Strakos/Restatement §385) that survives sale | Occidental: duty was premises-liability tied to ownership/control and passed to buyer on sale | Held: Claim against a former owner-creator remains premises liability; no post-sale negligence duty absent control or other independent duty |
| Whether premises-liability or ordinary negligence governs claims against an owner-creator | Jenkins: owner-as-creator should be treated like a contractor/manufacturer (ordinary negligence) | Occidental: owner’s duty is premises-based — to warn or make safe while in control | Held: Owner’s duties are premises-liability duties rooted in control and superior ability to remedy; not converted into contractor-style negligence |
| Whether Occidental owed a duty at time of Jenkins’s injury | Jenkins: designer liability survives; Occidental had continuing responsibility | Occidental: no ownership, possession, or control after sale; no ability to warn or remedy | Held: Occidental owed no duty because it had relinquished control; duty passed to Equistar |
| Relevance of statutes of repose to Occidental’s defenses | Jenkins: court of appeals found repose inapplicable | Occidental: repose could bar claim | Held: Court did not reach repose issues because it resolved case on duty/ownership grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Keetch v. Kroger Co., 845 S.W.2d 262 (Tex. 1992) (distinguishes negligence from premises-liability based on activity vs. condition)
- H.E. Butt Grocery Co. v. Warner, 845 S.W.2d 258 (Tex. 1992) (premises-liability principles for injuries from property condition)
- Strakos v. Gehring, 360 S.W.2d 787 (Tex. 1962) (contractor liability may survive acceptance of work; accepted-work doctrine rejected for contractors)
- Roberts v. Friendswood Dev. Co., 886 S.W.2d 363 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1994) (discussing Restatement §352 and vendor nonliability after conveyance)
- W. Invs., Inc. v. Urena, 162 S.W.3d 547 (Tex. 2005) (premises liability as a special form of negligence)
- Austin v. Kroger Texas, L.P., 465 S.W.3d 193 (Tex. 2015) (landowner’s superior position to know and remedy dangerous conditions)
- In re Weekley Homes, L.P., 180 S.W.3d 127 (Tex. 2005) (limiting Strakos to contractors/third parties)