HOUSTON - The First Court of Appeals today wiped a $60,000 judgment against ExxonMobil, finding the oil giant owed no duty to a worker who was injured at the company’s Baytown facility.
The lawsuit was brought by Jeremy Souders, who during a routine crane lift was pinned between two 30,000-pound heat exchanger bundles, suffering extensive injuries, according to the opinion.
After the trial, the jury found that Exxon was 30 percent negligent for Souders’ injuries, awarding him $60,000 for his past loss of earning capacity but no other damages.
The trial court entered judgment in accordance with the jury verdict and both parties appealed.
On appeal, Souders argued the judgment should be reversed and the case remanded for a new trial because the jury’s zerodollar findings for his other alleged damages were irreconcilably inconsistent with the evidence.
Exxon, conversely, argued there was no evidence to support a finding of negligence.
“Specifically, Exxon argues there is no evidence to support the trial court’s conclusion that Exxon owed any duty to Souders and no evidence to support the jury’s findings of breach of duty or proximate cause,” the opinion states.
“We agree that Exxon did not owe a duty and must reverse and render a take-nothing judgment in favor of Exxon.”
The First Court found that Exxon is not liable under Chapter 95 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, reversing the trial court’s judgment and rendering a take-nothing judgment in favor of Exxon.
“Because there is no evidence Exxon had actual knowledge of the alleged danger or condition resulting in Souders’s injury, Souders did not meet his burden under Section 95.003,” the opinion states. “Therefore, Exxon owed no duty and is not liable to Souders under Chapter 95.
“The trial court erred in rendering judgment in favor of Souders.”
Justice Peter Kelly offered a concurring opinion, warning that Texas courts’ current misprision of the term “actual knowledge” allows no inquiry into why a premises owner is unaware of a particular hazard – essentially enabling them to avoid liability for their negligent acts by remaining willfully ignorant.
“Under current Texas law, bad faith ignorance would be excused, because premises owners would now have the economic incentive to remain ignorant of the hazards on their premises, no matter how dangerous,” Kelly wrote.
Appeals case No. 01-21-00593-CV