ACCEPTED 14-14-00158-CV FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS R. RUSSELL HOLLENBECK 5/28/2015 3:54:37 PM CHRISTOPHER PRINE hollenbeck@wrightclose.com CLERK
Board Certified Civil Appellate Law Texas Board of Legal Specialization
FILED IN 14th COURT OF APPEALS May 28, 2015 HOUSTON, TEXAS 5/28/2015 3:54:37 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk Hon. Christopher A. Prine, Clerk Via Electronic Submission Fourteenth Court of Appeals 301 Fannin, Suite 245 Houston, Texas 77002
Re: Cause No. 14-14-00158-CV Oiltanking Houston, L.P., et al. v. Alberto Delgado, et al.
Dear Mr. Prine:
The undersigned is counsel for the Appellants, Oiltanking Houston, L.P., Oiltanking Holding Americas, Inc., Oiltanking Partners, L.P., and Oiltanking North America, L.L.C. (collectively, “Oiltanking”), in this proceeding. Oiltanking respectfully requests that you forward this letter brief to Justices Boyce, McCally, and Donovan. A copy of this letter is being served on counsel for the Appellees contemporaneously with its filing with the Court.
Oiltanking submits this post-submission letter to draw the Court’s attention to a recent decision by the Texas Supreme Court that impacts the consideration of the issues raised at the parties’ recent oral argument.
I. Chapter 95 applies to all negligence claims, including negligent activity and negligent undertaking claims, when its prerequisites are satisfied.
At the parties’ oral argument, the members of the panel asked counsel for both sides, “What about Elmgren?” (paraphrasing). The panel seemed particularly concerned about the holdings of that case concerning the scope of Chapter 95’s application to claims sounding in negligence. See Elmgren v. Ineos USA, LLC, 431 S.W.3d 657, 671 (Tex. App—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, pet. filed).
WRIGHT & CLOSE, LLP ONE RIVERWAY, SUITE 2200, HOUSTON, TEXAS 77056 TEL: 713.572.4321 FAX: 713.572.4320 Fourteenth Court of Appeals May 28, 2015 Page 2 of 5
In Elmgren, this Court held, in part, as follows: “[W]e conclude that Chapter 95 defeats a premises-liability claim if the statutory requisites are satisfied but does not as a matter of law reach distinct claims for negligent activity and negligent undertaking.” Id.
The Texas Supreme Court’s very recent decision in Abutahoun v. Dow Chemical Company, __ S.W.3d __, 2015 WL 2147979 (Tex. May 8, 2015), answers the panel’s question by effectively overruling Elmgren in this regard. (See attached.) In Abutahoun, the Court held as follows:
The sole issue in this appeal is whether Chapter 95 applies to an independent contractor’s negligence claims against a property owner when the claims are based on injuries arising out of the property owner’s negligent activities and not the independent contractor’s own work. . . . Applying the plain language of the statute, we hold that Chapter 95 applies to all independent contractor claims for damages caused by a property owner’s negligence when the requirements of section 95.002(2) are satisfied. * * * As we have explained, “negligent activity encompasses a malfeasance theory based on affirmative, contemporaneous conduct by the owner that caused the injury, while premises liability encompasses a nonfeasance theory based on the owner’s failure to take measures to make the property safe.” Despite their differences, both claims are a species of negligence. While it is true that “[w]e have rejected attempts to blur the distinction between these two claims, it is nonetheless an accurate statement that both types of claims fall within the common meaning of the term “negligence” that appears, undefined in section 95.001(1).
Id. at *1, *7 (citations omitted) (emphasis added).
As a result, the Court held that “[w]e can only conclude that the Legislature intended for Chapter 95 to apply to all negligence claims that arise from either a premises defect or the negligent activity of a property owner or its employees . . . .” Id. at *6 (emphasis added).
2 Fourteenth Court of Appeals May 28, 2015 Page 3 of 5
At oral argument, counsel for Appellees all but conceded the absence of any evidence supporting a negligent activity theory of liability. Given this recent decision from the Texas Supreme Court, as well as the fact that Appellees’ claims indisputably arise from a condition of the improvement on which they were working at the time of this accident, it is clear that whether this Court concludes Appellees’ theories of liability arise from negligent activity, negligent undertaking, or a condition of the premises, Appellees were required to satisfy the elements of Chapter 95 to recover.
II. There was no evidence of control or actual knowledge.
Chapter 95 requires proof that (i) the property owner exercised or retained some control over the manner in which the independent contractor performed its work, and (ii) the property owner had actual knowledge of the danger or condition of the premises that resulted in the independent contractor’s injuries or death and failed to adequately warn the contractor. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 95.003. Appellees failed to satisfy the elements of the statute.
This Court has previously held that proving a property owner exercised control over the means, methods, or details of an independent contractor’s work requires more than showing a right to order work to start or stop or to inspect progress and receive reports. See Johnston v. Oiltanking Houston, L.P., 367 S.W.3d 412, 417 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2012, no pet.). Nor is it enough to show the defendant controlled one aspect of an independent contractor’s activities if the accident arose from another. Id. Finally, the right to schedule the timing of work, coordinate the activities of contractors, and prescribe alterations or deviations in the work is also not sufficient to impose liability on a premises owner. Id. at 419 (“Oiltanking must have some latitude to tell its independent contractors what to do, in general terms, and may do so without becoming subject to liability.”). As shown in Oiltanking’s briefing, the evidence at trial did not rise to the level of control required to establish liability under Chapter 95.
How this accident occurred was also a matter of dispute at trial. But there was no evidence that anyone at Oiltanking possessed actual knowledge that
3 Fourteenth Court of Appeals May 28, 2015 Page 4 of 5
hazardous fumes or vapors were leaking around the plumber’s plug into the work area (if, in fact, they were) before this accident occurred. And as this Court has previously explained, mere constructive knowledge is not sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Chapter 95. See, e.g., Elmgren, 431 S.W.3d at 666 (holding defendant not liable under Chapter 95 where no evidence showed actual knowledge that valve at issue was leaking); Bishop v. Nabisco, Inc., 2004 WL 832916 at *3 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, no pet.) (mem. op.) (“Actual knowledge that the cover was dangerous is different than knowing that the cover was potentially dangerous.”). There was no evidence at trial that Oiltanking possessed the actual knowledge necessary to establish liability under Chapter 95.
For these and the others reasons raised in its briefing, Oiltanking respectfully requests that the Court reverse the trial court’s judgment.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ R. Russell Hollenbeck WRIGHT & CLOSE, LLP State Bar No. 00790901
4 Fourteenth Court of Appeals May 28, 2015 Page 5 of 5
RRH:jcr
cc: Peter M. Kelly Via Electronic Service KELLY, DURHAM & PITTARD, LLP 1005 Heights Blvd. Houston, Texas 77008
Robert S. Kwok Via Electronic Service KWOK DANIEL LTD., L.L.P. 6588 Corporate Drive, Suite 300 Houston, Texas 77036
Attorneys for Appellees
5 Abutahoun v. Dow Chemical Company, --- S.W.3d ---- (2015)
Safe Workplace Laws 2015 WL 2147979 Independent contractor's employee was not Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. injured by an improvement separate from improvement that was object of his work in NOTICE: THIS OPINION HAS NOT BEEN removing asbestos insulation and installing new RELEASED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE insulation on property owner's pipe system, PERMANENT LAW REPORTS. UNTIL RELEASED, and thus, statute precluding liability of property IT IS SUBJECT TO REVISION OR WITHDRAWAL. owners for injuries suffered by contractors or their employees from owner's failure to provide Supreme Court of Texas. a safe workplace applied to negligence claim asserted by employee's estate, which in turn Magdalena Adrienna Abutahoun, Individually and meant that estate was required to carry two- as Personal Representative of the Heirs and Estate pronged evidentiary burden, under the statute, of Robert Wayne Henderson, Deceased, and Tanya to prove that owner exercised or retained some Elaine Henderson, Individually in Her Own Right control over the manner in which the work was and as Next Friend of Z.Z.H., a Minor, Petitioners, performed and that owner had actual knowledge v. of the danger or condition resulting in worker's The Dow Chemical Company, Respondent death and failed to adequately warn. V.T.C.A., Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 95.001 et seq. NO. 13–0175 | Argued January 14, 2015 | OPINION DELIVERED: May 8, 2015 Cases that cite this headnote
Synopsis Background: Worker's estate sued property owner under [2] Statutes theories of premises liability, negligence, gross negligence, Language and conspiracy, alleging owner failed to keep its premises When construing a statute, courts begin with its in reasonably safe condition while worker was performing language. work for independent contractor, and failed to warn worker Cases that cite this headnote of “dangerous ongoing activities, namely the use, application, and clean-up and removal of asbestos-containing products.” The 160th Judicial District Court, Jim Jordan, J., entered [3] Appeal and Error judgment, on jury verdict, for estate. The Court of Appeals Cases Triable in Appellate Court reversed, 395 S.W.3d 335. Estate's petition for review was Appellate court reviews statutory construction de granted. novo.
Cases that cite this headnote [Holding:] The Supreme Court, Green, J., held that statute precluding liability of property owners for injuries suffered [4] Statutes by contractors' employees from an owner's failure to provide Plain Language; Plain, Ordinary, or safe workplace applied to estate's claims. Common Meaning Courts look to the plain meaning of the words in a statute as an expression of legislative intent. Affirmed. Cases that cite this headnote
West Headnotes (10) [5] Statutes Plain language; plain, ordinary, common, or literal meaning [1] Negligence
© 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1 Abutahoun v. Dow Chemical Company, --- S.W.3d ---- (2015)
Statutes Extrinsic Aids to Construction Cases that cite this headnote
If the statute is clear and unambiguous, courts must read the language according to its common [9] Statutes meaning without resort to rules of construction Plain, literal, or clear meaning of statute; or extrinsic aids. ambiguity Because abrogation is disfavored, courts Cases that cite this headnote examine the statute's plain language for the Legislature's clear intention to replace a common [6] Statutes law remedy with a statutory remedy, and the Plain Language; Plain, Ordinary, or court declines to construe statutes to deprive Common Meaning citizens of common-law rights unless the Statutes Legislature clearly expressed that intent. Defined terms; definitional provisions Cases that cite this headnote Statutes Context [10] Negligence Statutes Safe Workplace Laws Relation to plain, literal, or clear meaning; ambiguity When a claim does not arise from a condition or use of an improvement to real property A court initially limits its statutory review to the where the contractor or subcontractor modifies plain meaning of the text as the sole expression the improvement, the statute precluding liability of legislative intent, unless the Legislature has of property owners for injuries suffered by supplied a different meaning by definition, a contractors or their employees from owner's different meaning is apparent from the context, failure to provide a safe workplace does not or applying the plain meaning would lead to apply and an independent contractor can recover absurd results. for common law negligence. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Cases that cite this headnote Rem. Code Ann. § 95.002(2).
Cases that cite this headnote [7] Statutes Titles, headings, and captions When the plain meaning of a statute controls, the title of the section carries no weight, as a heading ON PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM THE COURT OF does not limit or expand the meaning of a statute. APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
Cases that cite this headnote Attorneys and Law Firms
Erin Marie Wiegand, Fisher, Boyd, Johnson & Huguenard, [8] Statutes LLP, Houston, Justin Joseph Presnal, Fisher, Boyd, Johnson Absence of Ambiguity; Application of & Huguenard, LLP, Houston, Michael E. Shelton, The Clear or Unambiguous Statute or Language Shelton Law Firm, Houston, for Amicus Curiae Dallas Statutes Building Trades Council. Extrinsic Aids to Construction William V. Dorsaneo III, SMU School of Law, Dallas, for When a statute's language is clear and Amicus Curiae William V. Dorsaneo III. unambiguous, it is inappropriate to resort to rules of construction or extrinsic aids to construe the Christine Tamer, Denyse Ronan Clancy, John Lacoste language. Langdoc, Baron & Budd, P.C., Dallas, for Petitioner Magdalena Adrienna Abutahoun.
© 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 2 Abutahoun v. Dow Chemical Company, --- S.W.3d ---- (2015)
nearby. He was also allegedly exposed to asbestos dust Amy Pharr Hefley, Macey Reasoner Stoke, Matthew Eagan, as a result of his own direct contact with the insulation Stephen G. Tipps, Baker Botts LLP, Houston, David P. products. At trial, a Dow employee who worked on the Herrick, Herrick & Associates PC, Dallas, for Respondent same asbestos-insulated pipeline system as Robert Henderson The Dow Chemical Company. testified, “[y]ou name it, we sawed it,” and also testified that individuals within twenty yards of him were “in the Opinion [asbestos] dust area.” In a pre-trial deposition, Robert JUSTICE GREEN delivered the opinion of the Court. Henderson testified that he was doing the same kind of work as Dow employees on the asbestos-insulated pipeline *1 In this case of first impression, we must interpret Chapter system, and he testified about the frequency, regularity, and 95 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, which proximity of the exposure he received as a bystander to Dow relates to limitations on a property owner's liability for injury, employees performing similar insulation work nearby. Robert death, or property damage to an independent contractor. See Henderson testified that, while at Dow's Freeport facility, he TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODEE ch. 95. The underlying worked on the pipeline system two to three days per week legal dispute began when a pipeline insulation worker for four to five hours per day, usually working within five to contracted mesothelioma and sued a chemical company ten feet of Dow employees who were working with asbestos- alleging that he was exposed to asbestos-containing products based insulation. while working as an independent contractor at the chemical company's facility. The sole issue in this appeal is whether *2 Eventually, Robert Henderson was diagnosed with Chapter 95 applies to an independent contractor's negligence mesothelioma, and he and his wife, Tanya, sued Dow claims against a property owner when the claims are based and over a dozen other defendants, alleging under various on injuries arising out of the property owner's negligent negligence and product liability theories that the defendants activities and not the independent contractor's own work. The were responsible for Robert Henderson's injuries due to court of appeals held that “[t]he plain meaning of the text asbestos exposure. Upon Robert Henderson's death, the of Chapter 95 does not preclude its applicability where a petition was amended to allow his adult daughter, Magdalena claim is based upon negligent actions of the premises owner.” Adrienna Abutahoun, and his minor daughter, through Tanya 395 S.W.3d 335, 347 (Tex.App.–Dallas 2013). Applying the Henderson as next friend, to join the lawsuit as wrongful plain meaning of the statute, we hold that Chapter 95 applies death heirs (collectively, the Hendersons). The lawsuit to all independent contractor claims for damages caused was originally filed in the 160th District Court in Dallas by a property owner's negligence when the requirements of County but was transferred to the asbestos multi-district section 95.002(2) are satisfied. We affirm the court of appeals' litigation (MDL) pretrial court in Harris County for pretrial judgment. proceedings. See TEX. GOV'T CODE § 74.162.
Dow moved for summary judgment in the MDL pretrial court, arguing that Chapter 95 of the Texas Civil Practice I. Factual and Procedural Background and Remedies Code applied to the Hendersons' negligence The Dow Chemical Company contracted with Win–Way claims against Dow and precluded any recovery. The MDL Industries to install insulation on a system of pipelines at pretrial court granted Dow summary judgment in part and Dow's facility in Freeport, Texas. Robert Henderson was dismissed “all claims against [Dow] in which Plaintiffs allege a Win–Way employee, and he assisted with the insulation that Decedent Robert Wayne Henderson ... was injured by work at Dow's Freeport facility from 1967 to 1968. Dow's exposure to respirable asbestos as the result of the activities Freeport facility contained thousands of pipes in a pipeline of Decedent and/or the activities of other employees of system that ran throughout the facility. The pipes, which Decedent's employer on any premises of [Dow].” The MDL Robert Henderson helped insulate with a material containing pretrial court denied Dow's motion for summary judgment asbestos, transported steam and various types of acid. While “as to all of Plaintiffs' other claims against [Dow], including working for Win–Way on the asbestos-insulated pipeline Plaintiffs' claims that Decedent was injured by virtue of the system at Dow's Freeport facility, Robert Henderson was activities of Dow Employees.” Accordingly, although Robert allegedly exposed to asbestos dust by Dow employees who Henderson was allegedly exposed to asbestos both directly were installing, sawing, and removing asbestos insulation from his own insulation work and as a bystander to the
© 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 3 Abutahoun v. Dow Chemical Company, --- S.W.3d ---- (2015)
insulation work of Dow employees, only the Hendersons' improvement. See id. at 348. Thus, Chapter 95 applied to claims predicated on the negligence of Dow's employees were the Hendersons' claims against Dow, and the Hendersons had allowed to proceed before the jury. to establish Dow's liability under the standards set forth in Chapter 95, which they failed to do. Id. The Hendersons filed The MDL pretrial court remanded the case to the original trial a petition for review in this Court, which we initially denied. court, and the Hendersons' remaining claims based on Dow's After considering the Hendersons' motion for rehearing, employees' contemporaneously negligent activities were tried which cited several recent courts of appeals' decisions that to a jury. The Hendersons' claims against all other defendants conflicted with the court of appeals' decision in this case, we were resolved before the case was submitted to the jury. At granted the Hendersons' petition. See 58 TEX. SUP. CT. J. 85 the conclusion of trial, a general negligence question was (Nov. 24, 2014). submitted that instructed the jury to consider, with respect to Dow, “only the activities of [Dow] employees at Dow ... facilities.” 1 The jury returned a verdict in which it found that II. Discussion Dow's negligence proximately caused Robert Henderson's injuries, and that Dow was 30% responsible for causing [1] [2] As always, “[w]hen construing a statute, we begin Robert Henderson's injuries. Based on the jury verdict and with its language.” State v. Shumake, 199 S.W.3d 279, 284 several adjustments, the trial court rendered judgment against (Tex.2006). Chapter 95 of the Texas Civil Practice and Dow for $2.64 million plus interest and court costs. Remedies Code is titled “Property Owner's Liability for Acts of Independent Contractors and Amount of Recovery.” TEX. Dow appealed the verdict and argued that Chapter 95 does not CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODEE ch. 95. The heart of the distinguish between a property owner's liability for exposure chapter, sections 95.002 and .003, establishes Chapter 95's caused by the activities of contractors and their employees applicability and limitations on a property owner's liability and exposure that the property owner's own employees' for personal injury, death, or property damage to independent activities caused. 395 S.W.3d at 338–39. Further, Dow contractors, respectively. 2 Id. §§ 95.002–.003. Regarding argued that Chapter 95 applied to bar all of the Hendersons' applicability, section 95.002 states that Chapter 95 “applies negligence claims because the Hendersons did not establish only to a claim.” Id. § 95.002. A “claim” is specifically that Dow had both control over Robert Henderson's work defined as “a claim for damages caused by negligence.” Id. and actual knowledge of the dangers of asbestos exposure § 95.001(1). Section 95.002 then explains that Chapter 95 as Chapter 95 requires. See id. at 339; see also TEX. CIV. applies only to a claim for damages caused by negligence: PRAC. & REM. CODEE § 95.003. The Hendersons argued that Dow could not “avail itself of the heightened protections (1) against a property owner, contractor, or subcontractor afforded by Chapter 95” because their claims against Dow for personal injury, death, or property damage to an owner, were “based solely upon the negligent activities of Dow a contractor, or a subcontractor or an employee of a employees, and not from injury arising from the condition contractor or subcontractor; and or use of an improvement of real property by [Robert] (2) that arises from the condition or use of an Henderson.” 395 S.W.3d at 342. improvement to real property where the contractor or subcontractor constructs, repairs, renovates, or modifies *3 The court of appeals agreed with Dow's interpretation the improvement. of the statute. See id. at 347. The court of appeals reversed the trial court's judgment and rendered a take- Id. § 95.002. Section 95.003 establishes the limitations on a nothing judgment in favor of Dow, holding that Chapter property owner's liability for a claim to which Chapter 95 95 applied to the Hendersons' claims against Dow because applies: “[t]he plain meaning of the text of [section 95.002(2) ] does not preclude [Chapter 95's] applicability where a claim is A property owner is not liable for personal injury, death, based upon the negligent actions of the premises owner.” or property damage to a contractor, subcontractor, or an Id. The court of appeals reasoned that the claim arose employee of a contractor or subcontractor who constructs, from the condition or use of an improvement (the asbestos- repairs, renovates, or modifies an improvement to real insulated pipeline system) where Robert Henderson, as a property, including personal injury, death, or property contractor, constructed, repaired, renovated, or modified the
© 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 4 Abutahoun v. Dow Chemical Company, --- S.W.3d ---- (2015)
damage arising from the failure to provide a safe workplace Dow argues that the court of appeals correctly held that unless: “[t]he plain meaning of the text of [section 95.002(2) ] does not preclude [Chapter 95's] applicability where a (1) the property owner exercises or retains some control claim is based upon the negligent actions of the premises over the manner in which the work is performed, other owner.” 3 395 S.W.3d at 347. Under Dow's interpretation than the right to order the work to start or stop or to of the statute, Chapter 95 “applies ... to a claim ... against inspect progress or receive reports; and a property owner ... for damages caused by negligence ... (2) the property owner had actual knowledge of the that arises from the condition or use of an improvement danger or condition resulting in the personal injury, to real property.” According to Dow, the only condition death, or property damage and failed to adequately warn. on Chapter 95's applicability—that the claim arise from the condition or use of an improvement to real property that Id. § 95.003. the contractor “constructs, repairs, renovates, or modifies”— was satisfied because Robert Henderson's asbestos exposure [3] [4] [5] [6] “We review statutory construction deresulted from Dow's employees doing the same work he did novo.” Crosstex Energy Servs., L.P. v. Pro Plus, Inc., 430 on the same asbestos-insulated pipe system. Dow contends S.W.3d 384, 389 (Tex.2014) (citing City of Rockwall v. that Chapter 95 applies when a negligence claim arises from Hughes, 246 S.W.3d 621, 625 (Tex.2008)). We look to the the “condition or use” of the improvement on which an plain meaning of the words in a statute as an expression of independent contractor is working, and the claim need not be legislative intent. Id. “If the statute is clear and unambiguous, predicated on a contractor's negligence. we must read the language according to its common meaning ‘without resort to rules of construction or extrinsic aids.’ ” [7] [8] Neither party seriously contends that Chapter 95 Id. (quoting Shumake, 199 S.W.3d at 284). Thus, we initially is ambiguous, although the Hendersons argue that the Court limit our statutory review to the plain meaning of the text as should employ several statutory construction aids that are the sole expression of legislative intent, see State ex rel. State typically reserved for interpreting ambiguous statutes. 4 We Dep't of Highways & Pub. Transp. v. Gonzalez, 82 S.W.3d read Chapter 95 to be unambiguous, and therefore we apply 322, 327 (Tex.2002), unless the Legislature has supplied its plain meaning as the statute is written. See City of Hous. v. a different meaning by definition, a different meaning is Jackson, 192 S.W.3d 764, 770 (Tex.2006). apparent from the context, or applying the plain meaning would lead to absurd results, see Tex. Lottery Comm'n v. First *5 The core of Chapter 95's applicability is that it “applies State Bank of DeQueen, 325 S.W.3d 628, 635 (Tex.2010). only to a claim,” TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODEE § 95.002, and the Legislature specifically defined a “claim” *4 The Hendersons argue that the court of appeals erred to mean “a claim for damages caused by negligence,” id. by holding that Chapter 95 applies to a claim predicated on § 95.001(1). Section 95.002(1) identifies whom a claim a property owner's “contemporaneous negligent acts” and for damages caused by negligence subject to Chapter 95 not, according to section 95.002(2), only to a claim that may be brought against: “a property owner, contractor, or arises when an independent contractor constructs, repairs, subcontractor.” Id. § 95.002(1). Despite identifying three renovates, or modifies an improvement to real property. In potential defendants in the applicability provision of section other words, according to the Hendersons, any claim that 95.002, the Legislature limited only a property owner's falls within the scope of section 95.002 must arise out of the liability in section 95.003. See id. § 95.003. Furthermore, independent contractor's work. They argue that the omission although the statute lists whom a claim governed by Chapter of a “property owner” from section 95.002(2), especially 95 can be asserted against, section 95.002 says nothing when it is included in section 95.002(1)'s list of possible about the actor who causes the negligence claim to arise and defendants against whom a claim falling within Chapter 95 makes no distinction between harm caused by a contractor's might be asserted, establishes that Chapter 95 applies only to actions and harm caused by another's actions. See id. § claims against property owners arising “out of the contractor's 95.002. Section 95.002(1) simply provides that a claim for work, and does not apply to a contractor who is a passive damages caused by negligence may be brought for “personal victim of the contemporaneous negligent activities of the injury, death, or property damage.” Id. § 95.002(1). That premises owner.” section also identifies the persons who may be damaged as “an owner, a contractor, or a subcontractor or an employee
© 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 5 Abutahoun v. Dow Chemical Company, --- S.W.3d ---- (2015)
of a contractor or a subcontractor.” 5 Id. Reading these Texas Tort Claims Act to no avail); Tex. State Technical provisions together, Chapter 95 applies to a claim against Coll. v. Beavers, 218 S.W.3d 258, 261 (Tex.App.–Texarkana a property owner for an independent contractor's personal 2007, no pet.) (“The courts of Texas have struggled to define injury, death, or property damage caused by negligence. The the limits of ‘use’ and ‘condition’ ... under the Texas Tort Legislature did not distinguish between negligence claims Claims Act.”). But despite numerous intermediate appellate based on contemporaneous activity or otherwise, and neither court decisions interpreting the phrase “condition or use” shall we. Cf. Shumake, 199 S.W.3d at 287 (“Because it is every way imaginable, we have never held that the phrase not defined otherwise, we conclude that the Legislature must rendered the Texas Tort Claims Act ambiguous or inoperable. have intended for gross negligence to have its commonly- This Court has agreed, for purposes of the Texas Tort accepted legal meaning.”). Claims Act, that the “condition or use” provision is “difficult to understand and difficult to apply,” but we have never The second part of the applicability provision, section used that characterization “as an excuse to shirk our duty 95.002(2), includes several undefined statutory words to interpret and apply the statute.” Robinson v. Cent. Tex. and phrases that have amassed commonly-accepted legal MHMR Ctr., 780 S.W.2d 169, 171 (Tex.1989). Accordingly, meanings in this Court's jurisprudence interpreting other although we review the “condition or use” language in tort-related statutes. Section 95.002(2), the most disputed Chapter 95 as a matter of first impression, we draw upon provision in this case, limits Chapter 95's applicability this Court's interpretation of the similar phrase in the Texas “only to a claim ... that arises from the condition or use Tort Claims Act for guidance. See TEX. GOV'T CODE § of an improvement to real property where the contractor 311.023(4). or subcontractor constructs, repairs, renovates, or modifies the improvement.” TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODEE *6 This Court has defined a “condition” as “either an § 95.002(2). This Court has analyzed tort-related statutes intentional or an inadvertent state of being.” Sparkman v. that include the undefined phrase “arises from” consistently Maxwell, 519 S.W.2d 852, 858 (Tex.1975). We have defined as being intended, at minimum, to capture causation. See, “use” as meaning “to put or bring into action or service; to e.g., Ryder Integrated Logistics, Inc. v. Fayette Cnty., 453 employ for or apply to a given purpose.” Miller, 51 S.W.3d at S.W.3d 922, 928–29 (Tex.2015) (per curiam) (construing 588. We have broadly defined an “improvement” to include how “arising from” was used in another tort-related statute, “all additions to the freehold except for trade fixtures [that] discussing prior cases that explained the phrase, and can be removed without injury to the property.” Sonnier concluding that “a plaintiff can satisfy the ‘arising from’ v. Chisholm–Ryder Co., 909 S.W.2d 475, 479 (Tex.1995) standard by demonstrating proximate cause”); see also TEX. (examining the statute of repose in section 16.009 of the GOV'T CODE § 311.023(4) (permitting courts to consider Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, which contains the laws on similar subjects when construing statutes). Thus, identical phrase “improvement to real property”). section 95.002(2) provides that Chapter 95 applies to a negligence claim that “arises from,” or is caused by, “the Given these definitions, a condition of an improvement to condition or use of an improvement to real property where the real property represents a different concept than a use of an improvement to real property. Indeed, we have treated contractor or subcontractor ... modifies the improvement.” 6 a condition or a use as comprising separate prongs of TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODEE § 95.002(2). the Texas Tort Claims Act. See Dall. Metrocare Servs. v. Juarez, 420 S.W.3d 39, 42 (Tex.2013) (per curiam). This We next consider the meaning of the undefined phrase distinction between these two concepts is supported “by use “condition or use of an improvement to real property.” See of the disjunctive conjunction ‘or’ between the two [words], id. For four decades, Texas jurists have repeatedly expressed which signifies a separation between two distinct ideas.” concerns about the difficulty of discerning the Legislature's Spradlin v. Jim Walter Homes, Inc., 34 S.W.3d 578, 581 intended meaning behind the words “condition or use” as (Tex.2000). The Legislature's enunciation of the two concepts they appear in the Texas Tort Claims Act, another tort-related of “condition or use” is consistent with this Court's common statute. 7 See, e.g., Tex. Dep't of Crim. Justice v. Miller, law jurisprudence, also reflected in Chapter 95, surrounding 51 S.W.3d 583, 590 (Tex.2001) (Hecht, J., concurring) a controlling contractor or property owner's liability for (detailing multiple instances when members of this Court injuries to independent contractors. 8 In the seminal case “have repeatedly beseeched the Legislature for guidance” of Redinger v. Living, Inc., 689 S.W.2d 415 (Tex.1985), on how to interpret the “use-of-property standard” in the
© 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 6 Abutahoun v. Dow Chemical Company, --- S.W.3d ---- (2015)
the Court explained that a property owner's “duty to keep Inc. v. Smith, 307 S.W.3d 762, 776 (Tex.2010) (citations the premises in a safe condition may subject the [property omitted). Despite their differences, both claims are a species owner] to direct liability for negligence in two situations: of negligence. See, e.g., W. Invs., Inc. v. Urena, 162 S.W.3d (1) those arising from a premises defect, (2) those arising 547, 550 (Tex.2005) (recognizing that “[p]remises liability from an activity or instrumentality.” 9 Id. at 417; see also is a special form of negligence” and that “[n]egligence and Keetch v. Kroger Co., 845 S.W.2d 262, 264 (Tex. 1992) premises liability ... involve closely related but distinct duty (citing Redinger, 689 S.W.2d 415) (“Recovery on a negligent analyses”). While it is true that “[w]e have rejected attempts activity theory requires that the person have been injured by to blur the distinction between these two claims,” Shumake, or as a contemporaneous result of the activity itself rather than 199 S.W.3d at 284, it is nonetheless an accurate statement by a condition created by the activity.”). that both types of claims fall within the common meaning of the term “negligence” that appears, undefined, in section These two categories of negligence existed in this Court's 95.001(1), see Urena, 162 S.W.3d at 550. jurisprudence prior to the enactment of Chapter 95, and “we presume the Legislature enacts a statute with knowledge of Next, we address the Hendersons' contention that the court existing law.” Dugger v. Arredondo, 408 S.W.3d 825, 835 of appeals' opinion “obviates more than a century of (Tex.2013). More specifically, in a Texas Tort Claims Act Texas common law that holds that a property owner is case we decided the year before the Legislature enacted liable in negligence for its own contemporaneous negligent Chapter 95, we interpreted the identical phrase “condition or activity.” According to the Hendersons, Chapter 95 did not use” to “encompass[ ] disparate bases for liability, one of abrogate common law negligence claims against property which is not dependant upon the actions of any employee.” owners for their contemporaneous negligent activities. More DeWitt v. Harris Cnty., 904 S.W.2d 650, 653 (Tex.1995). specifically, the Hendersons argue that “there is no ‘clear We explained that the “use” language “encompasses ... repugnance’ between (i) Chapter 95 claims ‘where the liability based on respondeat superior.” Id. We added that the contractor or subcontractor constructs, repairs, renovates, inclusion of “liability for a condition of real property” existed or modifies the improvement’ ... versus (ii) common law “in addition to liability based on principles of respondeat claims based on the contemporaneous negligent acts of superior,” and therefore liability for a condition imposed property owners.” Dow cites several cases recognizing that, liability for premises defects. Id. (emphasis omitted). Quite because of Chapter 95, an independent contractor no longer plainly, in DeWitt we held that the inclusion of the “use” has a common law negligence claim against a property language was meant to impose liability for the negligent owner. See, e.g., Francis v. Coastal Oil & Gas Corp., actions of an employee based on principles of respondeat 130 S.W.3d 76, 88 (Tex.App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, superior. Id. One year after we attached this particular no pet.) (“We agree ... that chapter 95 controls this case, meaning to the phrase “condition or use,” the Legislature is [the independent contractor]'s exclusive remedy against included the same undefined phrase in Chapter 95. We can [the property owner], and precludes common-law negligence only conclude that the Legislature intended for Chapter 95 to liability in [the property owner].”). apply to all negligence claims that arise from either a premises defect or the negligent activity of a property owner or its [9] We have explained that statutes can modify or abrogate employees by virtue of the “condition or use” language in common law rules, but only when that was what the section 95.002(2). See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODEE Legislature clearly intended. Energy Serv. Co. of Bowie § 95.002(2); Dugger, 408 S.W.3d at 835. v. Superior Snubbing Servs., Inc., 236 S.W.3d 190, 194 (Tex.2007). Because abrogation is disfavored, we examine *7 For the sake of thoroughness, we note that section the statute's plain language for the Legislature's clear 95.002(2)'s inclusion of “condition or use” preserves the intention to replace a common law remedy with a statutory notion that claims based on a premises defect are distinct from remedy, and we “decline[ ] to construe statutes to deprive claims based on negligent activities. As we have explained, citizens of common-law rights unless the Legislature clearly “negligent activity encompasses a malfeasance theory based expressed that intent.” Satterfield v. Satterfield, 448 S.W.2d on affirmative, contemporaneous conduct by the owner that 456, 459 (Tex.1969); see also Cash Am. Int'l Inc. v. Bennett, caused the injury, while premises liability encompasses a 35 S.W.3d 12, 16 (Tex.2000). The Hendersons are correct nonfeasance theory based on the owner's failure to take that a clear repugnance between the common law and a measures to make the property safe.” Del Lago Partners, statutory cause of action is required for courts to find that the
© 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 7 Abutahoun v. Dow Chemical Company, --- S.W.3d ---- (2015)
Legislature abrogated a common law right. See Cash Am. Int'l theories). Similarly, when a claim is brought against a Inc., 35 S.W.3d at 16. contractor or a subcontractor, section 95.003's limitation on liability does not apply and an independent contractor can Here, we do not find the sort of “clear repugnance” that would recover for common law negligence. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. justify a conclusion that the Legislature intended to abrogate & REM. CODEE § 95.003 (limiting only a property owner's an independent contractor's common law right to recover liability). We conclude that Chapter 95 did not abrogate an damages based upon the negligence of property owners. But independent contractor's right to recover for common law see, e.g., Waffle House, Inc., 313 S.W.3d at 807 (finding negligence in all instances. If anything, Chapter 95 is in abrogation of common law negligence causes of action where derogation of the common law, and Texas courts do not a statutory scheme involved a unique set of standards and strictly construe such statutes. See TEX. GOV'T CODE § procedures and the plaintiff sought to use the common law 312.006(b). to circumvent the “panoply of special rules” in the statute). Chapter 95 does not deprive an independent contractor of the Having concluded that Chapter 95 applies to an right to recover damages from a negligent property owner. independent contractor's claims for damages caused by the In fact, section 95.003 allows for such a recovery as long as contemporaneous negligent acts of a property owner, Dow the evidentiary burdens of the statute are satisfied. See TEX. could be subject to liability only if the Hendersons satisfied CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODEE § 95.003 (“A property owner the evidentiary burdens in both prongs of section 95.003. is not liable for personal injury, death, or property damage to See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODEE § 95.003. At a contractor ... unless....”). To be sure, when section 95.002 trial and at the court of appeals, the Hendersons sought to makes Chapter 95 applicable to an independent contractor's establish that negligence claims based on a property owner's negligence claim against a property owner that arises from or its employees' contemporaneous negligent activities did the condition or use of an improvement to real property, not fall within Chapter 95, but the Hendersons never sought the independent contractor's sole means of recovery is by to establish Dow's liability in the event that Chapter 95 did, satisfying section 95.003. This is consistent with the court in fact, apply to their claims. See 395 S.W.3d at 348. In of appeals' holding that when Chapter 95 applies to an this appeal, the Hendersons do not challenge the court of independent contractor's claims, the independent contractor appeals' conclusion that “[o]n this record, ... Chapter 95 is has “the burden to show that both conditions of section 95.003 applicable to all of [the Hendersons'] claims against Dow.” [have] been met before liability could be imposed upon” the See id. In fact, the Hendersons urge us not to address Chapter property owner. 395 S.W.3d at 348. 95's applicability to their specific claims in this case: “But this debate—is the improvement the entire pipe system at *8 [10] Moreover, by its own terms, Chapter 95's limitation Dow or the specific pipes [Robert] Henderson was working on liability does not apply to all negligence claims an on–need not be reached in this case....” Most importantly, injured independent contractor may assert. See TEX. CIV. the Hendersons have not challenged the court of appeals' PRAC. & REM. CODEE § 95.002(2). When a claim does conclusion that “the record does not support a finding of not “arise from a condition or use of an improvement liability as to Dow pursuant to the requirements of Chapter to real property where the contractor or subcontractor ... 95.” Id. Issues not raised on appeal to this Court are waived. modifies the improvement,” Chapter 95 does not apply and Guitar Holding Co., L.P. v. Hudspeth Cnty. Underground an independent contractor can recover for common law Water Conservation Dist. No. 1., 263 S.W.3d 910, 918 negligence. See Felton v. Lovett, 388 S.W.3d 656, 660 & (Tex.2008) (citing TEX. R. APP. P. 53.2(f)); see also Del n.10 (Tex.2012) (declining to recognize abrogation of the Lago Partners, Inc., 307 S.W.3d at 776 (“[W]e should not common law because the statute did “not purport to affect the stretch for a reason to reverse that was not raised.”). common law in cases other than those the statute covers”). This Court has developed a comprehensive body of law on In sum, the Hendersons failed to challenge the court of property owner liability for injuries suffered by independent appeals' conclusions that: (1) their specific claims against contractors that will continue to apply to cases when the Dow, as pleaded and applied, fell within Chapter 95, and applicability provision of section 95.002 cannot be met. See (2) their claims were barred by Chapter 95 because the generally Gen. Elec. Co. v. Moritz, 257 S.W.3d 211, 214– Hendersons did not establish Dow's liability under section 15 (Tex.2008) (explaining the duties owed to independent 95.003. Because these conclusions were not challenged, they contractors under negligent activity and premises defect are not properly before the Court and we do not decide
© 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 8 Abutahoun v. Dow Chemical Company, --- S.W.3d ---- (2015)
the condition or use of an improvement to real property where whether the court of appeals correctly applied Chapter 95 the independent contractor constructs, repairs, renovates, or to the facts of this case. See Guitar Holding Co., L.P., 263 modifies the improvement. Chapter 95 limits property owner S.W.3d at 918. Accordingly, because we agree with the court liability on claims for personal injury, death, or property of appeals' construction of Chapter 95, we affirm its judgment damage caused by negligence, including claims concerning reversing the trial court's judgment and rendering a take- a property owner's own contemporaneous negligent activity. nothing judgment in Dow's favor. This obviates the need to The Hendersons have not challenged the court of appeals' address the remaining issues Dow raises in this appeal. conclusion that Chapter 95 applied to their specific claims as pleaded, nor have they challenged the court of appeals' conclusion that they failed to establish Dow's liability under III. Conclusion section 95.003. We therefore affirm the court of appeals' judgment that reversed the trial court's judgment and rendered The court of appeals correctly held that Chapter 95 applies to a take-nothing judgment in Dow's favor. independent contractors' claims against property owners for damages caused by negligence when those claims arise from
Footnotes 1 The trial court overruled Dow's objection that Chapter 95 precluded the submission of a general negligence question. The trial court also denied Dow's requested jury instructions and questions that would have required the Hendersons to establish Dow's liability based upon Chapter 95's requirements. 2 For ease of reference, this opinion uses the phrase “independent contractor” as a shorthand substitute for the lengthier statutory phrase of “a contractor, subcontractor, or an employee of a contractor or subcontractor” that appears in Chapter 95. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE E §§ 95.002–.004. Although the phrase “independent contractor” does not appear in the text of Chapter 95, it appears in Chapter 95's title and section 95.003's heading, “Liability for Acts of Independent Contractors.” See id. § 95.003. 3 Both parties and the court of appeals used the phrase “premises owner” when referring to Chapter 95 and its contents. The word “premises” does not appear in Chapter 95. Instead, the chapter uses the phrase “property owner,” which section 95.001(3) defines to mean “a person or entity that owns real property primarily used for commercial or business purposes.” TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODEE § 95.001(3). We use the phrase “property owner” to remain consistent with the statutory text. 4 For instance, the Hendersons urge the Court to consider several titles in Chapter 95, legislative statements of the bill's sponsors, and a canon of construction called the doctrine of the last antecedent as indications of legislative intent. When the plain meaning of a statute controls, however, “the title of the section carries no weight, as a heading ‘does not limit or expand the meaning of a statute.’ ” Waffle House, Inc. v. Williams, 313 S.W.3d 796, 809 (Tex.2010) (quotingTEX. GOV'T CODE § 311.024). Moreover, “[w]hen a statute's language is clear and unambiguous, it is inappropriate to resort to rules of construction or extrinsic aids to construe the language.” City of Rockwall, 246 S.W.3d at 626; see also Tex. W. Oaks Hosp., LP v. Williams, 371 S.W.3d 171, 185 (Tex.2012) (recognizing that the doctrine of the last antecedent applies to ambiguous statutes); Stracener v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 777 S.W.2d 378, 383 (Tex.1989) (recognizing that the doctrine of the last antecedent is merely an aid used to determine the meaning and intent of communications, and it is not applicable in every case). 5 Although section 95.002(1) specifies who may be damaged for purposes of Chapter 95, section 95.001(2) defines a “claimant” more broadly to mean “a party making a claim subject to this chapter.” TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE E § 95.001(2). The word “claimant” appears only in the special legislative definitions and nowhere else in Chapter 95. See id. 6 Once again, only for ease of reference–and not to indicate a lack of significance for the words omitted—we have shortened section 95.002(2)'s phrase “constructs, repairs, renovates, or modifies the improvement” simply to “... modifies the improvement.” 7 The Texas Tort Claims Act uses the phrase “condition or use of tangible personal or real property.” TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODEE § 101.021. The Texas Tort Claims Act is distinguishable, however, because there is a separate section that applies specifically to claims for premises or special defects. Id. § 101.022. In contrast, Chapter 95's plain language does not require courts to classify certain negligence claims for different treatment. 8 Below, we address the Hendersons' contention that Chapter 95 did not abrogate common law negligence claims against property owners, or that any such finding of abrogation was impermissible. See infra pp. ––––.
© 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 9 Abutahoun v. Dow Chemical Company, --- S.W.3d ---- (2015)
9 Thereafter, the Court adopted the RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 414 (1977) approach for imposing liability on a property owner or general contractor that controls the work of an independent contractor who is negligently injured. See Redinger, 689 S.W.2d at 418.
End of Document © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
© 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 10