Primoris Energy Services Corporation D/B/A Sprint Pipeline Services v. Thomas Myers
569 S.W.3d 745
| Tex. App. | 2018Background
- On January 26, 2014 an 18‑wheeler reversing through a narrow gate on land subject to a pipeline easement struck Thomas Myers’s four‑wheeler; Myers sustained multi‑level cervical disc herniations and underwent a four‑level fusion.
- Myers sued Sprint (contractor), Montgomery (trucker), and driver Baggett for negligence; jury found Sprint 64%, Baggett 35%, and Myers 1% responsible.
- Jury awarded various damages including $315,000 past medicals, $500,000 future physical pain, and $2,000,000 future physical impairment. Trial court entered judgment; Sprint appealed.
- Key factual disputes concerned (1) whether Sprint’s spotters breached duties while guiding the truck, (2) causation of Myers’s injuries, and (3) reasonableness / admissibility of medical billing evidence (full billed amount vs. amounts paid/assigned).
- Parties settled while appeal was pending on rehearing; court withdrew prior opinion and issued this opinion addressing Sprint’s challenges to liability, apportionment, damages, and evidentiary rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Myers) | Defendant's Argument (Sprint) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Liability (negligent activity) | Spotters failed to warn/communicate; circumstantial evidence supports negligence | No contemporaneous negligent act by spotters; equally plausible inferences negate liability | Affirmed: evidence (spotter testimony, photo, reliance) legally and factually sufficient to support negligence finding against Sprint |
| Apportionment of fault | Jury allocation reflects evidence of spotters’ primary fault | Myers was negligent (approached gate, used phone); allocation is against weight of evidence | Affirmed: jury’s apportionment not against great weight and preponderance of evidence |
| Future physical impairment & damages | Injuries, scarring, muscle atrophy, loss of ranch work and enjoyment of life support $2M award | Award inflated; plaintiff’s economic “ranch‑hand” model improperly quantified non‑economic impairment | Affirmed: evidence aside from the economic model supports award; not manifestly unjust |
| Past medical expenses (admission and excluded billing testimony) | Full billed amounts and hospital billing witness admissible | Billed amounts irrelevant where discounts/assignments reduce recoverable amount; trial court erred in admitting full charges and excluding testimony about markups and factoring | Reversed in part/remanded: court did not err admitting full bill given factoring evidence, but erred and caused harm by excluding hospital billing testimony about negotiated discounts; new trial on past medical expenses only |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (legal‑ and factual‑sufficiency standards for jury findings and circumstantial evidence analysis)
- United Scaffolding, Inc. v. Levine, 537 S.W.3d 463 (Tex. 2017) (distinction between negligent‑activity and premises‑liability theories)
- Haygood v. De Escabedo, 356 S.W.3d 390 (Tex. 2011) (medical expense recovery limited to amounts actually paid or incurred; billing evidence rules)
- Golden Eagle Archery, Inc. v. Jackson, 116 S.W.3d 757 (Tex. 2003) (standard for reviewing damages sufficiency and jury discretion on non‑economic awards)
- Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175 (Tex. 1986) (factual‑sufficiency review standard)