CHADICK, Chief Justice.
During construction of a manufacturing plant for International Paper Company in Cass County, Texas, Papco, Inc., the general contractor for the project built and supplied a scaffold for the employees of Southern Electrical and Piping Corporation, a subcontractor hereafter called Sep-co, to use in performing construction work. Jimmy Eaton, an employee of the subcontractor, was on the scaffold deck engaged in doing overhead welding just prior to sustaining injury. The scaffold’s deck or work floor where Eaton worked had two by six inch “toe boards” nailed to frame its outer edges and form a six inch high rim around the deck’s topside. The toe boards were useful in preventing tools, material or other objects on the deck from being accidentally dislodged and, as shown by evidence in the record, the boards were fre[540]*540quently used as handholds by persons climbing up or down the scaffold ladder. Eaton immediately before injury, began to climb down the scaffold on the steel ladder built into the framework and in lowering himself Eaton grasped, as a handhold, the toe board next to the ladder. The toe board pulled loose causing Eaton to fall backwards to the ground some twenty-five to thirty feet below. Eaton’s injury was severe.
Whether Papco, the general contractor is considered an occupier of land or the supplier of a chattel (the scaffold), its liability for injury to Eaton is that of an occupier of land to a business invitee thereon. Delhi-Taylor Oil Corporation v. Henry, 416 S.W.2d 390 (Tex.1967); McKee General Contractor Inc., v. Patterson, 153 Tex. 517, 271 S.W.2d 391 (1954); Roosth & Genecov Production Co., v. White, 152 Tex. 619, 262 S.W.2d 99 (1953); Smith v. Henger, 148 Tex. 456, 226 S.W.2d 425 (1950).
Warren Aulds, Superintendent in charge of all Sepco pipefitting as well as supervis- or over the particular welding work Eaton was performing at the time of injury, testified that Papco management personnel had warned him, Aulds, that it was dangerous to use scaffold toe boards as handholds in ascending and descending the scaffold. He swore that aside from any warning from Papco management, he personally knew such use to be dangerous and had, through channels designated by Sepco's contract with the pipefitter union, warned the men under his supervision of the danger of using scaffold toe boards for handholds.
The opinion in Delhi-Taylor Oil Corporation v. Henry, supra, declares the law to be well settled that an occupier of land (such as Papco) may be relieved of liability for harm to invitees thereon (such as the subcontractor’s employee Eaton) resulting from dangerous conditions on the premises that are not open and obvious by taking proper precautions to protect such invitees from danger or by warning them thereof. The rule is supported by Halespeska v. Callihan Interests, Inc., 371 S.W.2d 368 (Tex.1963) and Western Auto Supply Company v. Campbell, 373 S.W.2d 735 (Tex.1963). On the basis of policy discussed therein Delhi-Taylor further holds that “an adequate warning to an independent contractor or one supervising his work will discharge the duty of the landowner or occupier to warn the employees of the independent contractor” of a dangerous condition on the occupier’s premises.
The trial court undertook to allow the jury to determine whether or not the danger warning given by Papco was adequate. The two special issues submitted and the jury’s answer thereto are as follows, to-wit:
“Sp. Issue No. 5: Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence that on the occasion in question the Defendant, Papco, through its agents, servants or employees, had given adequate warning to the Sepco Supervisor, Warren Aulds, that there was a risk of harm to a person using the toe board as a handhold in descending a scaffold.
(Jury) Answer: We do not.
Sp. Issue No. 6: Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence that on the occasion in question the Sepco’s Supervisor, Warren Aulds, had full knowledge that there was a risk of harm to a person using the toe board as a handhold in descending a scaffold.
(Jury) Answer: We do not.”
Papco moved the trial court to disregard the jury’s verdict on both special issues because “the uncontradicted and undisputed testimony of Warren Aulds, the Sepco supervisor, was that he had been given adequate warning, time and again, that there was a risk of harm to the person using the toe board as a handhold in descending a [541]*541scaffold and that at the safety meetings he had acquired full knowledge that there was a risk of harm to a person using the toe board as a handhold in descending a scaffold.”
Attention has not been called to any direct evidence, except that of Aulds bearing upon the issues. Warren Aulds was an interested witness and his uncontra-dicted testimony merely raised an issue of fact for jury determination. It was not conclusive. A witness in a case is interested, and the credibility and weight to be given such witness’ testimony is a question solely for the jury, when the record shows a reasonable basis for the witness harboring a partisan attitude towards the outcome of the case. 98 C.J.S. Witnesses, § 538; Tex. Jur. 2d Witnesses, Sec. 374. The testimony of an interested witness only raises an issue for jury determination; it is only when such testimony is “clear, direct and positive and there are no circumstances in evidence tending to discredit or impeach” the witness that such testimony must be given probative effect. Great American Reserve Insurance Company v. San Antonio Plumbing Supply Company, 391 S.W.2d 41 (Tex.1965); Tex.Jur.2d Witnesses, Sec. 373. Aulds candidly testified that he could not expect to progress as a contruction superintendent if he was indifferent to safety standards and procedures or if the incidence of employee injury, while under his supervision, was unusually high. The jury could have reasoned that it would have been to Aulds’ interest to show that Eaton was injured as a result of Eaton’s independent conduct and violation of warnings; that Aulds was influenced by self interest to testify that Eaton’s injury was not the result of Aulds’ lack of knowledge of danger or failure to impart it; or that Aulds was interested in minimizing or shifting from himself responsibility for the occurrence.
During the trial of the case George Kell and James J. Turchi were employed at the International Paper Company’s mill in Cass County, some twenty-five miles from Linden the county seat and site of the trial. Kell was employed in the plant’s maintenance department and Turchi as safety director. On May 8, 1972, the day Eaton was injured, both were employed in plant construction at the paper mill site. Kell was a pipefitter foreman for Sepco under general supervision of Warren Aulds and Turchi was safety director in charge of the construction safety program acting, according to his testimony, for Pap-co and Sepco, as well as International Paper.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
CHADICK, Chief Justice.
During construction of a manufacturing plant for International Paper Company in Cass County, Texas, Papco, Inc., the general contractor for the project built and supplied a scaffold for the employees of Southern Electrical and Piping Corporation, a subcontractor hereafter called Sep-co, to use in performing construction work. Jimmy Eaton, an employee of the subcontractor, was on the scaffold deck engaged in doing overhead welding just prior to sustaining injury. The scaffold’s deck or work floor where Eaton worked had two by six inch “toe boards” nailed to frame its outer edges and form a six inch high rim around the deck’s topside. The toe boards were useful in preventing tools, material or other objects on the deck from being accidentally dislodged and, as shown by evidence in the record, the boards were fre[540]*540quently used as handholds by persons climbing up or down the scaffold ladder. Eaton immediately before injury, began to climb down the scaffold on the steel ladder built into the framework and in lowering himself Eaton grasped, as a handhold, the toe board next to the ladder. The toe board pulled loose causing Eaton to fall backwards to the ground some twenty-five to thirty feet below. Eaton’s injury was severe.
Whether Papco, the general contractor is considered an occupier of land or the supplier of a chattel (the scaffold), its liability for injury to Eaton is that of an occupier of land to a business invitee thereon. Delhi-Taylor Oil Corporation v. Henry, 416 S.W.2d 390 (Tex.1967); McKee General Contractor Inc., v. Patterson, 153 Tex. 517, 271 S.W.2d 391 (1954); Roosth & Genecov Production Co., v. White, 152 Tex. 619, 262 S.W.2d 99 (1953); Smith v. Henger, 148 Tex. 456, 226 S.W.2d 425 (1950).
Warren Aulds, Superintendent in charge of all Sepco pipefitting as well as supervis- or over the particular welding work Eaton was performing at the time of injury, testified that Papco management personnel had warned him, Aulds, that it was dangerous to use scaffold toe boards as handholds in ascending and descending the scaffold. He swore that aside from any warning from Papco management, he personally knew such use to be dangerous and had, through channels designated by Sepco's contract with the pipefitter union, warned the men under his supervision of the danger of using scaffold toe boards for handholds.
The opinion in Delhi-Taylor Oil Corporation v. Henry, supra, declares the law to be well settled that an occupier of land (such as Papco) may be relieved of liability for harm to invitees thereon (such as the subcontractor’s employee Eaton) resulting from dangerous conditions on the premises that are not open and obvious by taking proper precautions to protect such invitees from danger or by warning them thereof. The rule is supported by Halespeska v. Callihan Interests, Inc., 371 S.W.2d 368 (Tex.1963) and Western Auto Supply Company v. Campbell, 373 S.W.2d 735 (Tex.1963). On the basis of policy discussed therein Delhi-Taylor further holds that “an adequate warning to an independent contractor or one supervising his work will discharge the duty of the landowner or occupier to warn the employees of the independent contractor” of a dangerous condition on the occupier’s premises.
The trial court undertook to allow the jury to determine whether or not the danger warning given by Papco was adequate. The two special issues submitted and the jury’s answer thereto are as follows, to-wit:
“Sp. Issue No. 5: Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence that on the occasion in question the Defendant, Papco, through its agents, servants or employees, had given adequate warning to the Sepco Supervisor, Warren Aulds, that there was a risk of harm to a person using the toe board as a handhold in descending a scaffold.
(Jury) Answer: We do not.
Sp. Issue No. 6: Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence that on the occasion in question the Sepco’s Supervisor, Warren Aulds, had full knowledge that there was a risk of harm to a person using the toe board as a handhold in descending a scaffold.
(Jury) Answer: We do not.”
Papco moved the trial court to disregard the jury’s verdict on both special issues because “the uncontradicted and undisputed testimony of Warren Aulds, the Sepco supervisor, was that he had been given adequate warning, time and again, that there was a risk of harm to the person using the toe board as a handhold in descending a [541]*541scaffold and that at the safety meetings he had acquired full knowledge that there was a risk of harm to a person using the toe board as a handhold in descending a scaffold.”
Attention has not been called to any direct evidence, except that of Aulds bearing upon the issues. Warren Aulds was an interested witness and his uncontra-dicted testimony merely raised an issue of fact for jury determination. It was not conclusive. A witness in a case is interested, and the credibility and weight to be given such witness’ testimony is a question solely for the jury, when the record shows a reasonable basis for the witness harboring a partisan attitude towards the outcome of the case. 98 C.J.S. Witnesses, § 538; Tex. Jur. 2d Witnesses, Sec. 374. The testimony of an interested witness only raises an issue for jury determination; it is only when such testimony is “clear, direct and positive and there are no circumstances in evidence tending to discredit or impeach” the witness that such testimony must be given probative effect. Great American Reserve Insurance Company v. San Antonio Plumbing Supply Company, 391 S.W.2d 41 (Tex.1965); Tex.Jur.2d Witnesses, Sec. 373. Aulds candidly testified that he could not expect to progress as a contruction superintendent if he was indifferent to safety standards and procedures or if the incidence of employee injury, while under his supervision, was unusually high. The jury could have reasoned that it would have been to Aulds’ interest to show that Eaton was injured as a result of Eaton’s independent conduct and violation of warnings; that Aulds was influenced by self interest to testify that Eaton’s injury was not the result of Aulds’ lack of knowledge of danger or failure to impart it; or that Aulds was interested in minimizing or shifting from himself responsibility for the occurrence.
During the trial of the case George Kell and James J. Turchi were employed at the International Paper Company’s mill in Cass County, some twenty-five miles from Linden the county seat and site of the trial. Kell was employed in the plant’s maintenance department and Turchi as safety director. On May 8, 1972, the day Eaton was injured, both were employed in plant construction at the paper mill site. Kell was a pipefitter foreman for Sepco under general supervision of Warren Aulds and Turchi was safety director in charge of the construction safety program acting, according to his testimony, for Pap-co and Sepco, as well as International Paper. At trial time both Kell and Turchi were amenable to subpoena as witnesses under the provisions of Texas Rules of Civil Procedure rule 176.
Testimony closed and the parties rested in the introduction thereof the afternoon of Wednesday, October 2, 1973. The judge and counsel for the parties were engaged that afternoon with preparation of the charge to the jury. At ten o’clock the next morning Thursday, October 3, counsel for Eaton requested leave to reopen the case to present Kell as a rebuttal witness. Objection was made by Papco on the grounds that the witness had been available to Eaton by subpoena or otherwise throughout the trial and that Aulds was no longer available to testify as he had returned to the State of Oregon. The court reopened the case to permit Kell to testify. At one o’clock Thursday afternoon Kell was produced as a witness and interrogation ended shortly after two o’clock. At such time Papco’.s counsel requested and was granted a short recess. Thereupon such counsel telephoned Turchi at the International Paper plant and was told by Turchi, that he, Turchi, could be present in court in twenty-five to thirty minutes. Turchi was instructed to come in and did appear at the courthouse within such time. However, when counsel for Papco returned to the courtroom and reported his desire to offer Turchi as a witness, the request was denied. In the bill of exception preserving Turchi’s testimony the trial judges’ questions developed that Turchi resided within one hundred miles of the county courthouse [542]*542and had been interviewed by Papco’s counsel prior to trial and had been available to testify as a witness for Papco on thirty minutes notice throughout the trial.
Aulds’ testimony adduced in the trial in chief was noticed earlier. In brief, he said that Papco supervisory personnel had warned him of the danger of using a toe board as a handhold and that he passed the warning on to to his general pipefitter foremen, including Kell, with instructions that the warning be given employees. Likewise adduced in the trial in chief, though in behalf of Eaton, was testimony of two pipefitter foremen. The first, Jimmy Brown, a crew foreman, said he could not recall mention being made by anyone in a safety meeting that toe boards were not to be used as a handrail. He also said that safety meetings were held by a general foreman and not by a superintendent or the safety director. The second to testify, Billy Pat Adcock, a general foreman, stated that neither Aulds nor anyone else instructed him or any workman on the job not to use toe boards as handholds and that he was never in a safety meeting with Aulds, though Aulds had been superintendent over him at various times.
After the case was reopened, on direct examination Kell testified that Aulds did not tell him that he, Aulds, had been told by Papco people not to use toe boards as handholds, nor had Aulds instructed him, Kell, to instruct those working under him not to so use toe boards. Kell also testified that his crews held safety meetings every Monday morning and made written reports thereof to Aulds. On cross-examination Kell testified his safety meetings were rather informal and that Aulds did not attend. Climatically, on redirect examination Kell testified that Aulds never told him, Kell, not to use toe boards as handholds and if Aulds so testified Aulds’ word could not be relied upon.
James J. Turchi’s testimony, as incorporated in a bill of exceptions, was in part as follows:
“Q. Now, in your meeting before May 9, 1972, did you ever have any discussion with Mr. Aulds, concerning the use of toe boards, as handholds on a scaffold?
A. Yes.
Q. And what were those discussions?
A. We had had an accident prior to this one, in the power plant one of these board had pulled loose. The man did not suffer any severe injuries, but we had recommended to these superintendents that they have people not grasp the toe boards in climbing down . to use the handrails or upright posts ... or the ladder on the scaffold.
Q. Was that about the month or six weeks before . . . ?
A. Approximately six weeks prior to this accident.
Q. When you had that meeting with them, was it Papco people there present ?
A. Papco and Sepco Superintendents were there.”
An analysis of Kell’s and Turchi’s testimony shows that the testimony of both would have been admissible in the case in chief, insofar as it was admissible at all; that it was cumulative of testimony previously introduced and that its effect was to bolster and fortify other evidence in the record. Additionally, Kell’s testimony tended to discredit Aulds as a witness while Turchi’s testimony that Aulds attended a safety meeting tended to rebut, by explanation rather then contradiction, the implication of Kell’s statement that he never saw Aulds at a safety meeting. Turchi’s testimony shows Aulds attended a safety meeting for Papco and Sepco Superintendents when the toe board danger and warning was under discussion.
Papco arraigns the trial court’s action associated with reopening the case as re[543]*543versible error on the ground that, after both parties had closed and rested in the presentation of testimony, the trial court allowed Eaton to reopen the case and present the testimony of George Kell, a witness who lived within one hundred miles of the courthouse etc. but:
(1) refused to permit Papco to introduce Turchi’s testimony in rebuttal thereof;
(2) over Papco’s objection that Aulds, a witness vital to rebuttal of Kell’s testimony, had already returned to his home in Oregon;
(3) refused to allow Papco to reopen and produce the testimony of Turchi, who lived within one hundred miles of the courthouse and had been available to Papco throughout the trial.
Though each particular ruling of the trial court is the subject of a separate point of error the disposition of these issues have a nexus and should not be considered in isolation from each other.
When the case was reopened, evenhanded procedure, “what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander”, would suggest that the trial judge delay proceedings a reasonable time to allow Papco to present Turchi as a witness. But the question is too complex to be settled by a simplistic folk maxim of fair play. A trial judge is afforded a wide discretion
“In this case it was not shown that the appellant (defendant) was harmed in any respect by the trial court’s action, nor was it shown that it was deprived of the right to offer any rebuttal evidence that it might have had in reply thereto” (Emphasis Added). See also Union Central Life Ins. Co., v. Boulware, 238 S.W.2d 722 (Tex.Civ.App. Beaumont 1951, no writ). Cases from other jurisdictions support the proposition that when a court reopens a case for one party the opposite party should not be deprived of an opportunity to offer rebuttal testimony in reply thereto and condemns refusal in such instances as reversible error. See: Daniel v. Tower Trucking Co., Inc., 205 S.C. 333, 32 S.E.2d 5 (1944); Pavlis v. Atlas-Imperial Diesel Engine Co., 121 Fla. 185, 163 So. 515 (1935); Davis v. Arkansas Best Freight System, Inc., 393 S.W.2d 237 (Sup.Ct. Arkansas 1965); 88 C.J.S. Trial, §§ 101, 103, 104, 110 and 111.
The question of whether or not to permit Turchi to testify arose in the latter part of the week when extravagant use of time might disrupt the trial calendar of cases that followed. Additionally, the trial judge was immersed in the exacting task of preparing a very intricate jury charge. In this period the judge was necessarily weighing counsel’s suggestions and consid[544]*544ering objections to the charge, while contending with the numerous distractions that normally beset a busy trial judge. In this atmosphere it was difficult to give the question of reopening calm and deliberate consideration or to foresee the ramifications and consequences of reopening the case. The authorities just noticed appear to hold that testimony rebutting that offered by the party reopening the case may be introduced as a matter of right. See also Gendke v. Travelers Insurance Company, 368 S.W.2d 3 (Tex.Civ.App. Waco 1963, no writ) and Tex.R.Civ.P. 265. In considering the feasibility of reopening a case for additional testimony the trial judge is obligated to consider the question in its entirety, that is, the rights of both parties when the case is reopened. Unless the case may be reopened and the right of each party to introduce evidence preserved, the motion to reopen should be denied. A trial judge is not vested with discretion to harmfully deprive a litigant of a matured right to produce rebuttal testimony.
The trial court was aware that through no fault of Papco, Aulds was not available as a witness and the record contains no suggestion that at the time the case was reopened Papco might be able to obtain testimony from any source tending to rebut evidence Eaton might produce in the reopened case. It was obvious that reopening would to some extent, favor Eaton unless Papco was able in short order to find a source, other than Aulds, of rebuttal evidence. Reopening, under the circumstances, did not clearly appear to be necessary in the due administration of justice.
Numerous cases, some of which were earlier set out in a footnote, establish the rule that whether or not a case will be reopened for reception of additional evidence is a question addressed largely to the discretion of the trial court. See 56 Tex.Jur.2d Trial, Sec. 118 et seq. and cases there footnoted. The rule is generally stated in the context of a record showing that only one party moved to reopen. The record here presents a distinctly different situation. Here both parties moved to reopen but only one party was allowed to do so. Eaton was permitted to reopen and adduce cumulative testimony but at the same time Papco was denied permission to reopen or to introduce evidence of the same nature. When the case was reopened Eaton presented testimony that tended to bolster and fortify witnesses that testified in the case in chief. Such testimony tended to exclude the probability that Aulds attended safety meetings or that he could have received a toe board warning from a Papco supervisor at a safety meeting. Turchi’s testimony, had the case been reopened to receive it, would have corroborated and strengthened Auld’s testimony that Papco supervisors had given him the toe board danger warning. Reopening to permit one party to offer cumulative testimony and at the same time refusing to reopen to permit the opposite party to introduce similar evidence is inconsistent and irreconcilable with Rule 270.
The skillful advocacy of the Eaton’s counsel carefully exploited the testimonial record as it was allowed to be made. In jury argument Eaton’s counsel asserted:
“I say Issue No. 5 on whether or not Papco had given adequate warning to Sepco supervisor Aulds that they were given to the person using the toe board as a handhold in descending the scaffold falls for want of meeting the burden of proof for this reason: Warren Aulds stands before the jury as a thoroughly impeached witness. He has told you from that witness stand that he went and told the general foreman not to use those toe boards as handholds. The general foreman has sat in here and looked you in the eye and he said Warren Aulds never told me any such thing. No . The warning, if given, was given to Aulds, where Ladies and Gentlemen . . . and it was given to [545]*545Aulds by the man who was drawing his paycheck from, the Defendant in this lawsuit. Now, why haven’t they brought that man in here to look you in the eye and tell you that ‘I gave him that warning’. We say it fails for that reason; and the same holds true for each of No. 6 . . . 7 is essentially the same issue.” (Emphasis Supplied)
Turchi was the only witness shown by the record to fit the description “the man who was drawing his paycheck from the Defendant” and the argument criticized Pap-co for not producing “that man” as a witness. Turchi’s testimony, if admitted, would have removed a basis for this rather devastating argument as it tended to show where and who gave Aulds the danger warning, if it was given.
The record shows a strenuous contest in which the jury was required to answer critical issues on the basis óf evidence. Deprivation of an opportunity to strengthen its own evidence or rebut and explain that produced by Eaton, under the circumstances shown, could only be harmful to Papco. In the respect noted, the trial court exceeded the freedom of action reasonably allowable to a court in the conduct of a case, and tilted the trial in favor of Eaton. Papco’s thirtieth, thirty-first and thirty-second points of error are sustained. The trial court’s action amounted to such a denial of the rights of Papco as was reasonably calculated to cause and probably did cause the rendition of an improper judgment.
The case must be reversed and remanded for a new trial and it is so ordered. All points of error not expressly sustained have been considered and a majority of the court, but not the same majority in every instance, overrules all points of error that would require a disposition of the appeal different from that here ordered, as well as, all points upon excessiveness of the judgment and the insufficiency or great weight and preponderance of the evidence.
CORNELIUS, J., concurs.
RAY, J., dissents.
Texas Courts have frequently stated that such discretion should be liberally exercised as it is in the interest of justice to permit both sides to fully develop a case. See: Russell v. Russell, 443 S.W.2d 569 (Tex.Civ.App. El Paso 1969, no writ); McRoy v. Riverlake Country Club, 426 S.W.2d 299 (Tex.Civ.App. Dallas 1968, writ ref’d n. r. e.); Lackey v. Perry, 366 S.W.2d 91 (Tex.Civ.App. San Antonio 1963, no writ); Hill v. Melton, 311 S.W.2d 496 (Tex.Civ.App. Dallas 1958, writ dism’d); State v. Parkey, 295 S.W.2d 457 (Tex.Civ.App. Waco 1956, writ ref’d, n. r. e.); Stroud v. Temple Lumber Co., 284 S.W.2d 909 (Tex.Civ.App. Beaumont 1955, writ ref’d, n. r. e.).