Jason JENKINS, Appellant v. OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL CORPORATION, Appellee.
No. 01-09-01140-CV.
Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (1st Dist.).
July 2, 2013.
Rehearing En Banc Overruled Oct. 22, 2013.
415 S.W.3d 14
HARVEY BROWN, Justice.
Following the Fourteenth Court of Appeals‘s reasoning in Williams, we hold that Palit‘s claims are not health care liability claims. We therefore affirm the trial court‘s order denying Mission Vista‘s motion to dismiss.
Barry Nathan Beck, Reagan Lee Butts, David Wayne Lauritzen, Cotton, Bledsoe, Tighe & Dawson, P.C., Midland, TX, Deborah G. Hankinson, Hankinson LLP, Dallas, TX, Karen Kay Maston, Johnson, Trent, West & Taylor, LLP, Houston, TX, Hubert Oxford III, Benckenstein & Oxford, LLP, Beaumont, TX, for Appellee.
Panel consists of Justices JENNINGS, SHARP and BROWN.
OPINION ON FURTHER REHEARING
HARVEY BROWN, Justice.
Jason Jenkins brought this action against Occidental Chemical Corporation after an acid addition machine designed by Occidental sprayed acid in Jenkins‘s face, rendering him partially blind. The jury found for Jenkins on liability and damages, but the trial court entered judgment in Occidental‘s favor based on two statutes of repose.1 In two issues, Jenkins argues that the trial court erred in entering judgment in favor of Occidental on the basis of the statutes of repose. In three cross-points, Occidental argues we may affirm the trial court‘s judgment on alternative grounds because Jenkins cannot prevail on the cause of action for which the jury found in his favor and because the statute of limitations bars Jenkins‘s claims. We hold that neither statute of repose applies, reject Occidental‘s alternative grounds for affirming the trial court‘s judgment, and remand the case for entry of judgment on the jury‘s liability and damages findings.2
Occidental owned a chemical plant in Bayport. In 1992, Occidental installed an acid addition system to regulate the acidity of a chemical compound it produced. Occidental employee Neil Ackerman developed the conceptual design for the system, shepherded the design process from start to finish, and was responsible for “getting it done.” He worked in collaboration with a team of Occidental employees and under the supervision of team leader Kathryn Hanneman. While Hanneman and other members of the design team were licensed engineers, Ackerman, who had an engineering degree, was not. Occidental hired a third-party engineering firm to create the detailed design drawings for the acid addition system. It also ordered some of the materials for the acid addition system and hired an independent contractor to fabricate and install the acid addition system at the plant.
Six years later, Occidental sold the plant with the acid addition system in place. Eight years thereafter, Jenkins, an operator at the plant, was partially blinded when the acid addition system sprayed acetic acid at him. Jenkins sued Occidental for negligence in designing the acid addition system.3 Occidental pleaded, as affirmative defenses, that Jenkins‘s claim was barred by two statutes of repose—one governing claims against registered or licensed professionals who design improvements to real property and the other governing claims against those who construct such improvements. See
After a two-week trial, the jury found in favor of Jenkins оn his negligence claim, attributed seventy-five percent of the liability to Occidental, and awarded damages.4 In response to the jury questions submitted by Occidental regarding its statute of repose defenses, the jury made the following findings about the acid addition system: (1) it was an improvement; (2) it was not designed by a licensed or registered engineer; and (3) it was designed under the supervision of a licensed or registered engineer. The trial court rendered a take-nothing verdict on the basis of Occidental‘s statute of repose defenses.
Standard of Review
In this appeal, we must interpret the statutes of repose set forth in sections 16.008 and 16.009 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code. The meaning of a statute is a question of law, which we review de novo. MCI Sales & Serv., Inc. v. Hinton, 329 S.W.3d 475, 500 (Tex. 2010); Entergy Gulf States, Inc. v. Summers, 282 S.W.3d 433, 437 (Tex. 2009). In construing sections 16.008 and 16.009, our primary goal is to ascertain and give effect to the legislature‘s intent as expressed by the words of the statute. MCI Sales, 329 S.W.3d at 500; Entergy Gulf States, 282 S.W.3d at 437. We give the words of the statute their plain and common meaning unless the statute defines the words otherwise, a different meaning is apparent from the context, or using the common meaning would lead to absurd results. FKM
In moving for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, Occidental relied on several jury findings to support its statute of repose defenses but challenged the jury‘s finding that the acid addition system was not designed by an Occidental employee who was a licensed or registered engineer. Occidental asserted that it conclusively proved the opposite. It further asserted that it conclusively proved alternative elements of its statute of repose defense on which it failed to request a jury finding: that the system was planned by an Occidental employee licensed in engineering and that it was inspected by an Occidental employee licensed in engineering. A statute of repose provides an affirmative defense, and Occidental bore the burden of proving all factual requisites to the application of the statutes of repose. See Ryland Group, Inc. v. Hood, 924 S.W.2d 120, 121 (Tex. 1996) (holding that defendant bore burden of establishing right to summary judgment on basis of statute of repose defense); Nexen Inc. v. Gulf Interstate Eng‘g Co., 224 S.W.3d 412, 416 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.) (observing that statute of repose operates as affirmative defense on which defendant bears burden of proof); see also
Occidental‘s Statute of Repose Defenses
The trial court interpreted the jury‘s findings that the acid addition system was an improvement and was designed under the supervision of an engineer as establishing Occidental‘s right to a tаke-nothing judgment on the basis of its statute of repose defenses. The trial court did not specify which statute of repose section—section 16.008 or section 16.009—it relied on in reaching that conclusion. In two issues, Jenkins argues that Occidental has not established a right to rely on either statute.
A. Introduction to sections 16.008 and 16.009 of the CPRC
Sections 16.008 and 16.009 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code are ten-year statutes of repose. See
Thus, sections 16.008 and 16.009 “differ in who they protect and the object of the work protected.” Sonnier v. Chisholm-Ryder Co., Inc., 909 S.W.2d 475, 479 (Tex. 1995). Section 16.009 relates only to improvements to real property but protects a broader class of persons: those who construct or repair such an improvement.
B. Section 16.008 does not bar Jenkins‘s claim against Occidental
In his first issue, Jenkins argues that the trial court erred in rendering judgment for Occidental under section 16.008 because (1) Occidental is not a registered engineering firm, (2) Occidental failed to prove conclusively that the acid addition system was designed by a registered or licensed engineer, and (3) the jury‘s finding that the design was supervised by a registered or licensed engineer is immaterial. Occidental does not contend that it is a registered engineering firm or that Ackerman was a registered or licensed engineer. Instead, it contends that the jury finding that the acid addition system was designed under the supervision of a licensed engineer is sufficient to establish application of the statute. Alternatively, it contends that the evidence conclusively established that the acid addition system was designed, inspected, and planned by Hanneman rather than Ackerman or any third-party. We conclude that supervision of the design by a licensed engineer does not invoke the statute, by the statute‘s plain language and in light of distinctive language in its sister statute. We also conclude that Occidental did not conclusively prove that Hanneman designed, inspected, and planned the acid addition system.
1. Supervision by a licensed engineer does not, alone, implicate the protections of section 16.008
By its clear and unambiguous language, section 16.008 limits its scopе to claims “against a registered or licensed ... engineer ... who designs, plans, or inspects” the construction of an improvement to real property.
Although our holding is dictated by the plain language of the statute, examining
Occidental relies on Texas Gas Exploration Corp. v. Fluor Corp., 828 S.W.2d 28 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1991, writ denied), and Sowders v. M.W. Kellogg Co., 663 S.W.2d 644, 646 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1983, writ ref‘d n.r.e.), to support its contention that section 16.008 applies when an improvement is designed under the supervision of, but not by, a registered or licensed engineer. While both opinions contain factual discussions regarding supervisory work by a licensed engineer, the holdings in these cases do not support Occidental‘s position.
The issue in Texas Gas was not whether the claims against the defendant, Fluor, fell within the scope of sections 16.008 and 16.009; rather, the issue was whether the statutes applied retroactively and whether Fluor was estopped from relying on them. 828 S.W.2d at 30. Occidental relies on a statement in the opinion that the “design and construction [of an expansion to a gas processing plant] were both performed under the supervision of a Texas-registered professional engineer.” But nothing in the opinion indicates that the expansion was not designed by a licensed engineer—a question that was not at issue. See id. at 30-31.
Sowders also did not address the issue presented here. In Sowders, the plaintiffs contended that the statute of repose for architects and engineers did not apply to their claims against M.W. Kellogg because it was a manufacturer, not a designer, of the propane unit in question. 663 S.W.2d at 646. The court held that the record did not support Sowders‘s contention that M.W. Kellogg was merely a manufacturer, reciting affidavit testimony that M.W. Kellogg was hired to construct and install the propane unit and that “the aforementioned engineering services were performed by or under the responsible charge of the engineers authorized to practice professional engineering in New York State.” Id. at 649. As in Texas Gas, the court‘s reference to “supervision” relates to the construction as well as the design of the unit at issue. It does not suggest that the unit was not designed by registered or licensed engineers. See id.; Tex. Gas Exploration, 828 S.W.2d at 30-31.
We conclude that the jury‘s finding that a registered or licensed engineer supervised the design of the acid addition system does not establish Occidental‘s right to the protections of section 16.008.
2. Occidental did not conclusively establish that Hanneman designed, planned, and inspected the acid addition system
Occidental asserts that it conclusively proved that Hanneman, a licensed engineer and the head of Occidental‘s design team for the project, designed the acid addition system. The jury disagreed,
Occidental points out that Hanneman initialed the final document, but this alone does not conclusively establish that Hanneman designed the acid addition system. Hanneman also testified that she was the one who decided to replace the old system for modifying the acid and Ph-balance, that the design process was collaborative, and that Ackerman “did not do this all by himself.” Occidental contends that this evidence is conclusive, and therefore may not be disregarded by the jury, because “evidence of Neil Ackerman‘s role in the design process” does not constitute “evidence that Hanneman did not participate in the design process.” We agree that the jury may not disregard relevant, undisputed evidence. See City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802, 810-11 (Tex. 2005).
We disagree that Hanneman‘s testimony was undisputed in the relevant respect. Occidental‘s argument misses the point for two reasons. First, section 16.008 does not extend protection to all who participated in the design process; it protects those “registered or licensed ... engineer[s]” who “design[], plan[], or inspect[]” improvements to real property. See
Occidental alternatively asserts that it conclusively proved that Hanneman planned and inspected the acid addition system. See
Occidental relies on evidence regarding Hanneman‘s role in forming the design team and as head of that team. Hanneman also reviewed and commented on some of the design drawings. While this evidence demonstrates that Hanneman had some involvement in the design process, it does not conclusively establish that she personally planned and inspected the construction of the acid addition system. The jury could have reasonably concluded that Hanneman‘s role was supervisory in nature and that Ackerman performed the actual planning and inspection of the construction.
The jury also could have reasonably concluded that the planning and inspection of the construction of the acid addition system was performed by an employee of HMW Design, the third-party contractor Occidental hired to do the design drafting. For example, the design drаwings reflect that they are “by” HMW employee Chet Wood, and those that are stamped “APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION” bear his initials on the approval signature line.7 Hanneman testified that HMW put together the drawings and material regarding “how [the acid addition system] was to actually be constructed.”
The jury likewise could have reasonably concluded that Hanneman planned and inspected the construction of the acid addition system. But Occidental neglected to obtain a jury finding on this issue. Occidental therefore failed to establish its statute of repose defense on this basis. See Texaco, 729 S.W.2d at 805-06; Whitney Nat‘l. Bank, 122 S.W.3d at 207.
We sustain Jenkins‘s first issue.
C. Section 16.009 does not bar Jenkins‘s claim against Occidental
Jenkins argues in his second issue that the trial court erred in rendering judgment for Occidental under section 16.009 because (a) the jury‘s liability finding is based on negligent design rather than negligent construction, (b) Occidental admitted it did not “construct” the acid addition system, and (c) Occidental is not entitled to “respondeat repose” for the acts of third-party contractors. See
By its plain language, Section 16.009 applies only to claims brought against “a person who constructs or repairs an improvement to real property” in an action “arising out of a defective or unsafe condition of the real property or a deficiency in the construction or repair of the improvement.”8 See
- “the defendant must be the one who constructs or repairs“;
- “that which the defendant constructs or repairs must be an improvement to real property“; and
- the action must “aris[e] out of a defective or unsafe condition of real property or a deficiency in the construction or repair of the improvement.”
Williams v. U.S. Natural Res., Inc., 865 S.W.2d 203, 206 (Tex. App.—Waco 1993, no writ) (first and second criteria) (emphasis in original);
The jury found that the acid addition system was an improvement to real property, and Jenkins does not challenge that finding in this appeal. Therefore, the second criterion is satisfied. The parties’ arguments focus on whether the first criterion is satisfied. We hold that it is not and therefore do not reach the third criterion, i.e., the issue of whether this is an action arising out of an unsafe condition of real property or a deficiency in the construction work. Compare
1. Occidental did not conclusively establish that it was “a person who constructs or repairs an improvement to real property”
Occidental bore the burden of proof on its statute of repose defenses. See Ryland, 924 S.W.2d at 121; Nexen, 224 S.W.3d at 416. Unless an affirmative defense is established as a matter of law, the defendant also bears the burden of obtaining the jury findings necessary to support the elements of the defense. Texaco, 729 S.W.2d at 805-06; Whitney Nat‘l. Bank, 122 S.W.3d at 207. Over Jenkins‘s objection, Occidental declined to request any jury findings with respect to its role in the construction of the acid addition system. Thus, unless Occidental conclusively established that it constructed the acid addition system, its failure to obtain a favorable jury finding is fatal. See Texaco, 729 S.W.2d at 805-06.
Section 16.009 expressly limits its application to claims against individuals or entities who “construct[] or repair[] an improvement.”
Occidental‘s payment for the installation does not convert Occidental into a constructor. Occidental did not conclusively establish that it was a “direct actor” in the construction or repair of the acid addition system. See Petro Stopping Ctrs., Inc. v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 906 S.W.2d 618, 620 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1995, no writ) (“The statute only grants repose to the direct actors in the construction or repair of an improvement to real property.“). Nor is Occidental an entity in the construction industry. See Galbraith Eng‘g. Consultants, Inc. v. Pochucha, 290 S.W.3d 863, 867 (Tex. 2009) (noting that the statute “only precludes suits against persons or entities in the construction industry that annex personalty to realty“). Section 16.009 does not apply to a claim against a defendant “who may have performed some function in relation to an improvement to real property but who cannot be considered a constructor or repairer of the improvement.” Williams, 865 S.W.2d at 207.
Thus, Occidental did not conclusively establish that it “construct[ed] or repair[ed] an improvement to real property,” and Jenkins‘s claim against Occidental is not within the scope of section 16.009 according to its plain language. See
2. Occidental did not conclusively establish that it performed a role equivalent to that of a general contractor
Occidental observes that statutes of repose are remedial in nature and, therefore, are given a “comprehensive and liberal construction rather than a technical construction which would defeat the purpose motivating its enactment.” McCulloch v. Fox & Jacobs, Inc., 696 S.W.2d 918, 921 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1985, writ ref‘d n.r.e.). Occidental cites three cases to support its contention that the phrase “a person who constructs or repairs” should be liberally construed to include a property owner who provides the conceptual design, provides the parts, and hires a third-party contractor to construct or repair an improvement: Fuentes v. Continental Conveyor & Equipment Co., Inc., 63 S.W.3d 518, 521-22 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2001, pet. denied); Reames v. Hawthorne-Seving, Inc., 949 S.W.2d 758, 763 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1997, pet. denied); and McCulloch v. Fox & Jacobs, Inc., 696 S.W.2d at 922. The cases cited by Occidental recognize that section 16.009‘s protection extends to parties who, though they did not personally perform the construction work at issue, were nevertheless contractually responsible for the construction work and subject to liability in the lawsuit based on that responsibility. We conclude that the reasoning of these cases is not applicable here because (a) Occidental did not conclusively establish that it was contractually responsible for the construction work or that it acted as its own general contractor and (b) its liability does not stem from any purported involvement in, or responsibility for, the construction process.
Reames addresses the applicability of section 16.009 in a situation when a general contractor is sued for construction work performed by its subcontractor. 949 S.W.2d at 763. The court reasoned that because the general contractor “bore ultimate responsibility to [the property owner]” for construction of the conveyor belt and “was involved in the actual construction of the conveyor belt,” it was entitled to protection under section 16.009. Id. The analysis in Reames expressly turns on the defendant‘s position as the general contractor and its responsibility to the property owner. Id. (stating that the defendant‘s “relationship to the installation
The Fuentes court relied on Reames to hold that a conveyor belt system manufacturer hired by the property owner to “supervise and assist” in the installation of its conveyor belt system was protected by section 16.009. Fuentes, 63 S.W.3d at 521-22 (citing Reames, 949 S.W.2d at 763). The Fuentes court reasoned that the property owner hired the manufacturer “to supervise the installation because it wanted [the manufacturer] to bear the ultimate responsibility for the proper installation” of its own equipment. Id. The dual role of supervising and assisting the construction amounted to constructing an improvement. Id. (citing Reames, 949 S.W.2d at 763).
The reasoning of Reames and Fuentes is not applicable here. In both cases, the defendants did not physically “hammer the nails and turn the screws,” but they had “ultimate responsibility” for the construction, and their liability stemmed from their responsibility for that work. See Reames, 949 S.W.2d at 763; Fuentes, 63 S.W.3d at 521-22; see also Jackson v. Coldspring Terrace Prop. Owners Ass‘n., 939 S.W.2d 762, 768-69 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1997, writ denied) (holding that statute of repose barred claims against successor-in-interest of licensor of entity that constructed pool because its potential liability “could only vicariously result from [its predecessor-in-interest] ‘putting out’ itself as the manufacturer of a defective construction of the pool“). The same is not true here. The evidence does establish that Occidental prepared the general conceptual design of the acid addition system and hired and paid third-party contractors to draft the detailed designs that specified “how it was actually to be constructed” and to actually construct the system. However, Occidental did not present evidence, or even argue below, that it acted as its own general contractor. Cf. Reames, 949 S.W.2d at 763.9 Nor did Occidental present evidence that it bore the ultimate responsibility for actual construction of the acid addition system. Cf. Fuentes, 63 S.W.3d at 521-22; Reames, 949 S.W.2d at 763.
In McCulloch, the Dallas Court of Appeals applied the prior version of the statute, article 5536(a), to claims brought against a community developer, Fox & Jacobs. The McCulloch court articulated this test for determining whether an owner is entitled to protection from the statute of repose for contractors:
The statute was intended to apply to litigation against architects, engineers, and others involved in designing, planning or inspecting improvements to real property, as distinguished from materialmen and suppliers and from tenants and owners who possess or control the property. Thus, the critical inquiry is whether Fox & Jacobs’ role in constructing the pool was more analogous to that of a builder or to an owner or supplier.
696 S.W.2d at 922 (internal citations omitted).
Unlike this case, Fox & Jacobs‘s role was more consistent with that of a general contractor: Fox & Jacobs not only hired contractors to create a conceptual layout and perform certain portions of the work in constructing the pool, an engineer to design the pool, and a contractor to perform the actual construction, it also supervised, inspected, and approved the construction process. Id. Additionally, though Fox & Jacobs was the nominal owner of
McCulloch does not apply under these facts.10 Occidental did not act in a role analogous to the developer in McCulloch. Occidental was the property owner, not a general contractor or other third-party hired to manage and oversee various aspects of the construction work.11 The “critical inquiry” under McCulloch—whether Occidental‘s role in the construction was more analogous to that of a builder or that of an owner or supplier—weighs against Occidental. See McCulloch, 696 S.W.2d at 922.12
We conclude that Reames, Fuentes, and McCulloch do not support Occidental‘s interpretation of section 16.009 as applying to this case.13 And, as noted above, we
We sustain Jenkins‘s second issue.
Occidental‘s Cross-Points
Occidental raises three cross-points, arguing that if the trial court‘s judgment cannot be affirmed on the ground upon which it was rendered, it is nevertheless the correct outcome on these alternative grounds: (1) the only cause of action available to Jenkins is a premises liability action for which he failed to plead, prove, or obtain a jury finding; (2) Jenkins cannot recover under a negligent design theory because he did not prove the elements of a products liability claim; and (3) Jenkins‘s claim is barred by the statute of limitations. We reject each of these alternative grounds.
A. Jenkins‘s claim arises out of Occidental‘s design of the acid addition system, not any ownership or control of the premises
Occidental contends that because Jenkins was injured while operating an improvement to real property, his claim sounds exclusively in premises liability. Because Occidental no longer owned the plant at the time of Jenkins‘s injury, Occidental asserts that it cannot be held liable for its negligent design of the acid addition system. We do not find support for Occidental‘s position in the cases on which it relies. See Keetch v. Kroger Co., 845 S.W.2d 262, 264 (Tex. 1992); McDaniel v. Cont‘l. Apartments Joint Venture, 887 S.W.2d 167, 171 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1994, writ denied) (op. on reh‘g); Billmeier v. Bridal Shows, Inc., No. 02-08-00314-CV, 2009 WL 1176441, at *3 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth April 30, 2009, no pet.) (mem. op.).
Keetch and Billmeier do not involve injuries caused by improvements to real рroperty; they involve injuries caused by a slippery spot on the floor. Keetch, 845 S.W.2d at 264; Billmeier, 2009 WL 1176441, at *2. These cases distinguish between injuries arising out of an owner or operator‘s contemporary negligent activity and injuries arising out of a premises defect. Unlike the issue presented in this appeal, the injured plaintiff‘s claims were against the defendant who owned or controlled the premises at the time of the accident and therefore had the ability to make safe or warn of the condition.14 See Keetch, 845 S.W.2d at 264; Billmeier, 2009 WL 1176441, at *3-4.15 These cases do
McDaniel, on the other hand, does involve an injury caused by an improvement to land. 887 S.W.2d at 171. But McDaniel does not support Occidental‘s position. McDaniel died when a balcony at an apartment complex collapsed on top of her. Id. at 169. Her heirs sued the independent contractor who remodeled and extended the balcony eight years before it collapsed, the joint venture that owned the apartment complex at the time of remodeling, and the joint venture‘s individual members. Id. In the portion of the Dallas Court of Appeals‘s opinion relied on by Occidental, the court held that McDaniel could only recover against the former property owners under a premises liability theory because her injury arose out of the condition of the balcony rather than concurrent negligent activity by the owners. Id. at 171-72. There was no claim that the former property owners designed or constructed the balcony, i.e., that they created the dangerous condition.17 On the other hand, the jury found the independent contractor liable for his negligence in building the remodeled balcony. Id. at 170. The independent contractor did not appeal that finding.
Here, Occidental played two distinct roles—the role of the designer of the faulty improvement, who was subject to liability, and the role of the former premises owner, who was not subject to liability. But the jury‘s liability finding against Occidental relies on the first role and not the second role. Thus, Occidental is subject to liability only for its design work.18
We see no reason why the fact that Occidental‘s acid addition system was an-
Occidental contends that Roberts v. Friendswood Development Co., 886 S.W.2d 363, 367-68 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, writ denied), “precludes liability” against Occidental because that case holds that a former property owner is not liable for dangerous conditions created by the owner before the conveyance.20 We dis-
We therefore reject Occidental‘s contention that premises liability law bars Jenkins‘s claim against Occidental. We overrule Occidental‘s first cross-point.
B. Jenkins‘s claim is not a strict produсts liability claim against a product manufacturer
The Supreme Court of Texas has recognized that a claim for negligent design or negligent manufacturing is legally distinct from a strict products liability claim. See Am. Tobacco Co., Inc. v. Grinnell, 951 S.W.2d 420, 437 (Tex. 1997) (“The [plaintiff‘s] negligent design and manufacturing claims are conceptually distinguishable from the strict liability claims.“).23 Occidental relies on American Tobacco for the proposition that a negligent design claim can only be brought against a manufacturer, quoting a portion of the Court‘s opinion distinguishing negligent design claims from strict products liability claims: “While strict liability focuses on the condition of the product, ‘[n]egligence looks at the acts of the manufacturer and deter- mines if it exercised ordinary care in design and рroduction.‘” Id. (quoting Caterpillar, Inc. v. Shears, 911 S.W.2d 379, 384 (Tex. 1995)). We do not read this quote as eliminating common law negligence claims against designers of products who are not manufacturers. The American Tobacco Court discussed the duties at issue in terms of a manufacturer‘s duties because the defendant in the case was a manufacturer. See id.
Texas courts have also recognized the general negligence duty owed by architects and engineers who perform design work but do not place their work in the stream of commerce (and thus are not subject to strict products liability).24 See Palmer v. Espey Huston & Assocs., Inc., 84 S.W.3d 345, 356 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2002, pet. denied) (“Because the breakwater was not put in the stream of commerce, strict liability in tort does not apply. Rather, this case is about the design of a breakwater to which we apply principles of ordinary negligence.“); Hanselka v. Lummus Crest, Inc., 800 S.W.2d 665, 666 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1990, no writ) (stating, with respect to allegedly defective design of plant‘s sludge disposal system, “This is not a product defect case in which, because products have been put into the stream of commerce, strict liability applies; but rather, it is a case about design of a factory to which we apply principles of ordinary negligence.“).
We note that the legislature has enacted separate statutes of repose for strict liabil-
Occidental relies on New Texas Auto Auction Services, L.P. v. Gomez De Hernandez, for the proposition that Jenkins was required to prove that the acid addition system was a product and that Occidental placed it in the stream of commerce. See 249 S.W.3d 400, 402 (Tex. 2008) (holding that auctioneer who handled sale of car between seller and buyer could not be held liable for allegedly defective condition of car). But New Texas Auto Auction did not involve a common law negligent design claim. See id. Instead, it involved claims against an auctioneer for strict products liability and for negligent failure to replace the tires on a car it auctioned off. See id. The New Texas Auto Auction Court held that the auctioneer had no duty to inspect or replace the tires and could not be held liable in strict products liability because it was not aсtually the seller of the vehicle. See id. at 404. The Court observed that the limitation of strict products liability claims to products placed in the stream of commerce “arises from the justifications for strict liability itself.” Id. at 403-04, 405. Jenkins did not assert a strict products liability claim. Occidental cites to no case that holds or otherwise indicates that the stream-of-commerce requirement has be extended to ordinary negligence actions brought against non-manufacturers.
We conclude that Jenkins asserted a claim for negligence in the design of the acid addition system, not a claim for strict products liability. The elements that Occidental asserts Jenkins has not proved are not elements of his claim. The jury found that Occidental was negligent in its design of the system—including a safer alternative design finding—and that this negligence proximately caused Jenkins injuries. Occidental has not challenged these jury findings. Nor has Occidental asserted that it did not owe a duty to Jenkins with respect to its design of the acid addition system, except to the extent that it argues that only a property owner or operator may be held liable for injuries caused by improvements to real property—a contention we have rejected.
We overrule Occidental‘s second cross-point.
C. The statute of limitations does not bar Jenkins‘s claim
Finally, Occidental contends that the trial court‘s take-nothing judgment can be affirmed on the alternative ground that Jenkins‘s claim was barred by the statute
We overrule Occidental‘s third and final cross-point.
Occidental‘s Arguments on Rehearing
On rehearing, Occidental shifts its primary focus from the statutes of repose to its first alternative ground for affirming the trial court‘s judgment—that a premises defect claim is the exclusive negligence claim available for an injury arising out of a “condition” of property rather than concurrent negligent activity. Occidental correctly distinguishes a рremises owner, operator, or controller‘s two types of liability: premises defect liability and negligent activity liability. But Occidental did not own, operate, or control the plant when Jenkins was injured, and its liability does not arise out of any ownership, operation, or control of the premises. Forcing injured third parties like Jenkins to frame negligent design claims as if they were premises liability claims either expands the duty to “warn or make safe” to architects, engineers, and other design professionals or it insulates them from liability to third parties injured by their negligent work. This is not and has not ever been the law in Texas.
A. Occidental‘s liability is neither contingent on, nor relieved by, Occidental‘s prior ownership of the plant
In its first issue on rehearing, Occidental asserts that the Court‘s holding here “upends settled Texas law by permitting recovery against a former premises owner years after the property‘s conveyance.” As discussed above, the jury held Occidental liable based on its negligence in designing the acid addition machine, not based on its previous ownership or control of the plant.
We are unpersuaded by Occidental‘s reliance on a 1986 California case—Preston v. Goldman, 42 Cal. 3d 108, 227 Cal. Rptr. 817, 720 P.2d 476 (1986)—to argue that
Preston is inapplicable here for three reasons. First, the analysis in Preston centers on the defendants’ status as private homeowners rather than professional engineers or contractors, and the Preston court expressly limited its holding to that scenario. See id. at 487 n. 10 (“Our holding here relates only to the liability of ‘do-it-yourself’ home improvers and is not intended to affect, establish, or diminish any liability of commercial builders, contractors or renovators.“).27 Indeed, part of the court‘s rationale was that California homeowners generally would not be insured for an injury suffered after conveyance of the property. Id. at 483. No such analysis has been offered here. Second, unlike Strakos, Preston focused on “ownership and control as a fundamental requirement for ascribing liability,” rather than the creation of a dangerous condition. Id. at 483. Strakos also rejected the accepted work doctrine, a doctrine that eliminated a defendant‘s liability after work was accepted because the defendant no longer controlled the property. Strakos, 360 S.W.2d at 790 (exрlaining that liability should not exist day before contractor‘s work is accepted and end day it is accepted and that, while one “who assumes control over a danger- ous condition left by a contractor may be liable,” it “does not necessarily mean that he who creates the danger should escape liability“). Third, the defect in Preston—the design and construction of the pool—was “a patent one as a matter of law.” 720 P.2d at 485.
Moreover, other jurisdictions have faced more factually analogous circumstances and have rejected arguments similar to Occidental‘s. These cases have imposed liability on former plant owners whose negligent design work resulted in an injury to a third-party after the sale of the plant to a new owner. See Stone v. United Eng‘g, a Div. of Wean, Inc., 197 W. Va. 347, 475 S.E.2d 439, 443-44 (1996) (holding former plant owner liable for its negligent design of conveyor belt); Dorman v. Swift & Co., 162 Ariz. 228, 782 P.2d 704, 706-08 (1989) (holding former plant owner liable for negligent design of conveyor belt); see also Carroll v. Dairy Farmers of Am., Inc., No. 2-04-24, 2005 WL 405719, at *6 (Ohio Ct. App. 3rd 2005) (not designated for publication) (finding fact issue as to whether former plant owner was negligent
B. The distinction between negligent activity and premises defect liability governs an owner or controller‘s liability
In its second issue on rehearing, Occidental argues that Jenkins‘s injury was caused by an unreasonably dangerous premises condition and therefore will only support a premises liability claim. Occidental invokes the distinction between premises defect liability and negligent activity liability—two distinct categories of negligence liability a premises owner or controller may have, which are governed by different liability standards. See, e.g., Del Lago Partners, Inc. v. Smith, 307 S.W.3d 762, 775 (Tex. 2010) (“As to landowners, we have recognized negligent-activity and premises-liability theories of liability.“).29 But Occidental neither owned nor controlled the plant at the time of Jenkins‘s injury. For the reasons discussed below, we decline to impose the elements of a premises defect claim on the jury‘s negligent design finding. See e.g., Barzoukas v. Found. Design, Ltd., 363 S.W.3d 829, 838 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2012, pet. filed) (finding question of fact on negligence claim against engineering firm based on foundation design work); Goose Creek Consol. Indep. Sch. Dist. of Chambers & Harris Cntys., Tex. v. Jarrar‘s Plumbing, Inc., 74 S.W.3d 486, 495 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2002, pet. denied) (holding that school district could recover against plumbing subcontractor for negligent construction of pipes); J.D. Abrams, Inc. v. McIver, 966 S.W.2d 87, 93 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1998, pet. denied) (holding that contractor owed general negligence duty to third-party by dangerous condition contractor created on road); Thomson v. Espey Huston & Assocs., Inc., 899 S.W.2d 415, 422 (Tex. App.—Austin 1995, no writ) (reversing summary judgment on negligence claim against engineering firm for design work except as barred by economic loss rule); McKinney v. Meador, 695 S.W.2d 812, 814-15 (Tex. App.—Tyler 1985, writ ref‘d n.r.e.) (affirming judgment against engineers and contractors based on negligent design and construction of airport runway); Hyatt Cheek Builders-Eng‘rs Co. v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Tex. Sys., 607 S.W.2d 258, 264 (Tex. Civ. App.—Texarkana 1980, writ dism‘d) (holding that general negligence question properly submitted issue of contractor‘s negligent installation of water pipe).
1. Wyckoff v. George C. Fuller Contracting Co.
On rehearing, Occidental relies on a recent case out of the Dallas Court of Appeals: Wyckoff v. George C. Fuller Contracting Co., 357 S.W.3d 157 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2011, no pet.). In Wyckoff a visitor at a home sued the homeowner and home-
We disagree with the Wyckoff court‘s conclusion that a homebuilder, who neither owns nor controls the premises, owes the same duty the homeowner owes to licensees on the premises. To the extent the Wyckoff court may be read as holding that any claim for an injury not caused by contemporaneous negligent activity may only be brought as a premises defect claim, we would disagree with that holding as well. To the extent the Wyckoff court held that a plaintiff cannot recover for a design defect of which she had actual knowledge at the time of the injury, that holding is not implicated by the facts of this case.
2. We decline to adopt Wyckoff‘s extension of premises liability
The existence of a legal duty is a threshold requirement for negligence liability—whether sounding in general negligence or premises defect liability. Kroger Co. v. Elwood, 197 S.W.3d 793, 794 (Tex. 2006). “Tеxas law generally imposes no duty to take action to prevent harm to others absent certain special relationships or circumstances.” Torrington Co. v. Stutzman, 46 S.W.3d 829, 837 (Tex. 2000). One “special relationship” that gives rise to a duty to take action to prevent harm to others is the relationship between a premises owner or operator and those present on the premises; within this context, the law imposes a duty on the premises owner or operator to take action to make the premises reasonably safe or to warn invitees and licensees of an unreasonable danger. See State v. Williams, 940 S.W.2d 583, 584 (Tex. 1996) (per curiam). The law imposes this same duty on a general contractor in control of the premises. Clayton W. Williams, Jr., Inc. v. Olivo, 952 S.W.2d 523, 527 (Tex. 1997); Redinger v. Living, Inc., 689 S.W.2d 415, 417 (Tex. 1985).
But the Texas Supreme Court has never extended the duty to warn or make safe to defendants who did not own, occupy, or control the premises at the time of the plaintiff‘s injury. See Allen Keller Co. v. Foreman, 343 S.W.3d 420, 426 (Tex. 2011) (holding that engineering firm, whose work was dictated by and complied with contractual specifications, had no duty to warn of dangerous condition on premises); Mathis, 189 S.W.3d at 845 (holding that engineer did not owe duty to keep premises safe and did not owe any duty with respect to hole on premises engineer neither created nor agreed to make
Having declined to extend premises defect liability to non-owners, non-occupiers of premises, we likewise decline to extend the premises-defect/negligent-activity dichotomy to claims against such defendants. We do so for three reasons. First, it encourages expansion of premises defect duties to parties who neither own nor control the premises, as demonstrated in Wyckoff, 357 S.W.3d at 163-64. Second, if the test for whether premises defect principles apply were merely whether the injury resulted from a concurrent negligent activity or a “condition of premises,” without regard to the nature of the defendant or the defendant‘s duties, a wide variety of claims would be collapsed into premises defect claims. Third, the elements of the duty owed by an owner, occupier, or controller of premises are not necessarily compatible with the duties (if any) owed by other parties, such as design professionals.
For all of these reasons, we hold that Occidental did not owe a duty to keep the plant in a safe condition or to warn those present at the plant of dangerous conditions on the premises, but Occidental did owe a duty to be non-negligent in its engineering and design of the acid addition machine. Because the jury held that Occidental breached the latter duty, we are not persuaded by Occidental‘s arguments on rehearing.
Motion for En Banc Reconsideration
In its April 2013 motion for en banc reconsideration, Occidental raises the Texas Supreme Court‘s holding in In re Texas Department of Transportation, 218 S.W.3d 74, 75 (Tex. 2007), as a basis for affirming the trial court‘s judgment. In that case, the Court held that a plaintiff‘s claim against TxDOT for its negligent design decisions regarding a guardrail sounded exclusively in premises liability, not negligence. Id. at 77-78. The design claim against TXDOT could not proceed under general negligence principles because the design was not “an activity contemporaneous with the occurrence.” Id. at 78. The plaintiff‘s claim was “based on the property itself being unsafe,” which is a premises liability claim. Id. at 77-78. We do not read that per curiam opinion as limiting the scope of Strakos, which it did not discuss. Similarly, we do not interpret it as revising the longstanding application of general negligence principles for claims against designers and constructors of dangerous property conditions by creating the sweeping proposition that even persons who do not own, possess, or control a premises but who create a dangerous condition on it can only be sued for premises defects. Rather we interpret Texas Department of Transportation as another in a long-line of Texas cases that precludes a plaintiff from recasting a premises liability claim—a claim against the owner, occupier, or party in control of the premises (in that case the arеa adjacent to the road where the guardrail was installed)—as a negligence claim.31 We are not persuaded that
Conclusion
This is an unusual case in which a former plant owner performed its own design work for an improvement to real property. Section 16.008 is the statute of repose that would typically apply to and limit the time for bringing a claim against a defendant in Occidental‘s position, but Occidental is not entitled to that defense because the jury found that it allowed an unlicensed, unregistered engineer to design the acid addition system. Occidental‘s efforts to invoke Section 16.009, as an alternative to Section 16.008, are the equivalent of trying to fit a square peg into a round hole—Occidental did not “construct[] or repair[]” the acid addition system, and we will not read this language to mean something it does not say. Occidental‘s alternative grounds for affirming the trial court‘s judgment require us to treat Jenkins‘s claim against Occidental as if it were based on Occidental‘s status as the former property owner or as if it were a strict liability products claim. But these are not the claims Jenkins pleaded and tried.
We therefore reverse the trial court‘s take-nothing judgment and remand for entry of judgment in favor of Jenkins based on the jury‘s findings on liability, proportionate responsibility, and damages, as well as other matters necessary to calculate damages and interest.