610 S.W.3d 884
Tex.2020Background
- Wesley Fredieu, employed by contractor Wood Group, worked on W&T Offshore platforms and was injured on a W&T platform while performing a safety check; he sued W&T for negligence.
- W&T asserted the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA) barred the suit because Fredieu was W&T’s “borrowed employee.”
- At trial the court submitted a single broad-form yes/no question to the jury asking whether Fredieu was W&T’s borrowed employee and listed the nine Ruiz factors for consideration; the jury answered “No,” found W&T negligent, and awarded damages.
- The trial court held borrowed-employee status is a question of law, disregarded the jury’s answer as immaterial, made its own Ruiz-factor findings, and entered judgment for W&T; the court of appeals reversed and reinstated the jury verdict.
- The Texas Supreme Court held (1) borrowed-employee status is a legal question for the court (though subsidiary factual findings may be required), (2) W&T waived obtaining Ruiz-factor findings from the jury and failed to prove the defense because control and other factors were disputed, and (3) the jury’s $950,000 award for future lost earning capacity was legally sufficient.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether borrowed-employee status is a question for judge or jury | Fredieu: Texas procedural practice allows jury determination; disputed facts make it a fact issue | W&T: Federal LHWCA law treats borrowed-employee as a legal question for the court | Held: Legal question for the court; court may require subsidiary fact-findings, but ultimate determination is legal |
| Whether trial court properly disregarded jury’s borrowed-employee answer and made its own Ruiz findings | Fredieu: court properly disregarded jury on a legal question | W&T: jury’s finding should control; trial court erred to override | Held: Disregarding jury answer was proper because question is legal; W&T waived requesting juror findings and thus cannot rely on omitted findings |
| Whether evidence conclusively established borrowed-employee status under Ruiz factors | Fredieu: evidence, especially on control, did not establish borrowed-employee status | W&T: evidence (direction, payment to contractor, site conditions, right to discharge) shows borrowed-employee | Held: W&T failed its burden—control and several Ruiz factors were disputed and not conclusively in W&T’s favor |
| Sufficiency of evidence for $950,000 future lost earning capacity | Fredieu: economist and medical testimony supported award and jury could assess earning capacity | W&T: expert’s calculations didn’t account for post-injury wage; award unreliable | Held: Award upheld as legally sufficient; jury could consider expert, medical evidence, and earning-capacity (not just current wages) |
Key Cases Cited
- Ruiz v. Shell Oil Co., 413 F.2d 310 (5th Cir. 1969) (announced nine-factor borrowed-employee test)
- Gaudet v. Exxon Corp., 562 F.2d 351 (5th Cir. 1977) (applied Ruiz factors under LHWCA)
- Billizon v. Conoco, Inc., 993 F.2d 104 (5th Cir. 1993) (borrowed-employee status treated as question of law for the court)
- Brown v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 984 F.2d 674 (5th Cir. 1993) (Ruiz factors may implicate fact issues requiring fact-finder resolution)
- White v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 222 F.3d 146 (4th Cir. 2000) (LHWCA coverage framed as legal standard)
- Standard Oil Co. v. Anderson, 212 U.S. 215 (U.S. 1909) (control is central to borrowed-servant analysis)
- Hebron v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 634 F.2d 245 (5th Cir. 1981) (emphasizing control as key factor)
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (legal-sufficiency standard for jury findings)