Recent Appellate Court Decision in Workplace Injury Case

Originally published by By Chelsie Garza.

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals recently handed down a decision in the E.I. DuPont de Neours and Company v. Roye matter. In doing so, some argue that the majority misapplied and/or ignored well established Texas law. The Roye matter involved an independent contractor working at a DuPont facility. While on the premises Roye fell through a pallet when the ground below caved in landing in a pool of 400 degree condensate up to his chest. Roye suffered second and third degree burns over 75% of his body. A jury of his peers, awarded Roye in excess of $ll million to compensate him for his harms and losses.

The majority took up two issues within its decision. First being a charge issue; did the trial court submit the correct question to the jury. The more controversial of the two was the second issue. The majority looked at whether DuPont had knowledge of the hazard presented by the pool of 400 degree condensate. This is where the dissenting opinion takes issue, as do many who stand to criticize the opinion. Between the majority and dissent, the knowledge issue boils down to this, the level of proof the plaintiff needs in order to make their case. In Roye, the plaintiff argued that DuPont created the pool of hot condensate through its decision not to install a drainage system to remove the hazard. If DuPont created the pool, the Keetch decision says the jury can infer DuPont had actual knowledge of the hazard and can therefore be held responsible for the harm caused by the hazard. The majority, however, took the position that the pool of hot condensate developed over time applying the CMH decision to conclude the plaintiff had not presented sufficient evidence that DuPont knew or, through reasonable inspection, should have known the pool developed.

Although I did not sit in the courtroom, nor have I read the record, it appears from reading the majority and the dissent, that there is a difference of opinion as to the application of the law to the facts. In other words, a fact issue. Did DuPont create the pool of condensate or did the hazard develop over time. Ordinarily in civil litigation fact issues are decided by the jury.

If you or someone you know have been injured in a workplace accident, contact the attorneys at Abraham, Watkins, Nichols, Sorrels, Agosto, and Friend by calling 713-222-7211 or 1-800-870-9584.

Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.

from Texas Bar Today http://ift.tt/1pc3EE2

via Abogado Aly Website