852 S.W.2d 37 | Tex. App. | 1993
OPINION
The Sherwin-Williams Company appeals a take-nothing judgment entered against it on its cross-claim for contribution against Trinity Contractors, Inc. Sherwin-Williams and Trinity were codefendants in a personal-injury case filed by Ronald and Monica Windham. In August 1990 Trinity was completing extensive renovations of a Sherwin-Williams paint-manufacturing plant under a $1.5 million contract. On August 16 Ronald Windham, an employee of a Trinity affiliate, sustained crippling leg and feet injuries when a paint-resin storage tank adjacent to the one he was working on exploded. At trial, a jury found that Sherwin-Williams’ negligence in the design, construction, operation, or maintenance of the storage tank was a proximate cause of the explosion. The jury also found that Sherwin-Williams’ negligence was a proximate cause of Windham’s injury, but it returned a “no” answer as to Trinity and Windham. The jury awarded the Windhams over $4 million in actual damages. Finding that Sherwin-Williams was grossly negligent and that it acted with malice, the jury also awarded Wind-ham $10 million in exemplary damages.
After the court rendered judgment in accordance with the verdict, Sherwin-Williams settled with the Windhams for $12.5 million. As part of the settlement, Sherwin-Williams obtained a “Release and Indemnity Agreement” from the Wind-hams to “settle all claims”; the trial court entered an agreed “Order” granting Sher-win-Williams’ motion to disregard the jury’s findings on gross negligence, malice, and exemplary damages and modifying the judgment to eliminate the award of exemplary damages; and the Windhams filed a “Satisfaction of Judgment” for all amounts entered against Sherwin-Williams for negligence. Thereafter, the court denied Sher-win-Williams’ motion for new trial on its cross-claim for contribution against Trinity.
Sherwin-Williams now contends, in three points of error, that the court’s charge unfairly singled out Sherwin-Williams by instructing the jury on the doctrine of res
Trinity responds that, because Sherwin-Williams is estopped to reassert its purported contribution claim, we need not address its points of error. We agree. Not only did Sherwin-Williams settle all of the Windhams’ claims against it, it voluntarily satisfied the judgment that denied its cross-claim for contribution against Trinity.
The essential prerequisites for a contribution claim are a judgment finding the party seeking contribution to be a joint tortfeasor and the payment by such party of a disproportionate share of the common liability.
Sherwin-Williams seeks a new trial on Trinity’s negligence even though it has effectively precluded Trinity from relitigat-ing Ronald Windham’s negligence or the amount of the Windhams’ damages. Because the matter of contributory negligence is not clearly separable from the liability and damages issues without unfairness to Trinity, we cannot reverse the judgment as to Trinity and order a new trial only on Sherwin-Williams’ cross-claim for contribution.
A party cannot treat a judgment as both right and wrong.
Because Sherwin-Williams is estopped to reassert its purported contribution claim against Trinity, we affirm the judgment without reaching Sherwin-Williams’ points on appeal.
. Beech Aircraft Corp. v. Jinkins, 739 S.W.2d 19, 21 (Tex.1987).
. See Tex.R.App.P. 81(b)(1).
. 773 S.W.2d 676, 681 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1989, no writ).
. See id. at 679.
. Id. at 680.
. Carle v. Carle, 149 Tex. 469, 234 S.W.2d 1002, 1004 (1950).
. Id.