Uvalle v. Agricultural Warehouse, Inc.

779 S.W.2d 68, 33 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 19, 1989 Tex. LEXIS 107, 1989 WL 130458
CourtTexas Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 4, 1989
DocketC-8019
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 779 S.W.2d 68 (Uvalle v. Agricultural Warehouse, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Uvalle v. Agricultural Warehouse, Inc., 779 S.W.2d 68, 33 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 19, 1989 Tex. LEXIS 107, 1989 WL 130458 (Tex. 1989).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner Ruben Uvalle was an employee of a construction contractor, Delta Engcon Inc., hired by respondent Agricultural Warehouse Inc. (AWI) to build a warehouse. Uvalle was injured on the site, and brought a personal injury action against AWI, the premises owner, and J & O Concrete, another contractor on the job. J & O defaulted, but the claims against AWI were tried to a jury, and the trial court rendered judgment on the verdict for Uvalle.

On AWI’s appeal, the court of appeals reversed the judgment of the trial court and remanded the cause for new trial. 759 S.W.2d 691 (Tex.App.1988). The Court of Appeals concluded that there was harmful error in the trial court’s evidentiary rulings, and in the submission of the jury charge. The court also held that the trial court erred in refusing a “definition” and instructions, numbered 1-4, tendered by AWI. See 759 S.W.2d at 695. These requests, generally speaking, concerned AWI’s lack of liability for the actions of an independent contractor, absent AWI’s retention of some control over the work-.of the contractor.

We deny Uvalle’s application for writ of error. Our denial, however, does not imply approval of the “definition” or instructions for use in a new trial after remand. Should issues concerning AWI’s potential liability under Redinger v. Living, Inc., 689 S.W.2d 415 (Tex.1985), arise again upon retrial, we trust that the issues will be framed in a more cogent and concise manner for the jury.

HECHT, J., not sitting.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Lawrence v. Coastal Marine Service of Texas, Inc.
983 S.W.2d 757 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1997)
Scott Fetzer Co. v. Read
945 S.W.2d 854 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1997)
Dresser Industries, Inc. v. Lee
880 S.W.2d 750 (Texas Supreme Court, 1993)
MBank El Paso, N.A. v. Sanchez
836 S.W.2d 151 (Texas Supreme Court, 1992)
Barham v. Turner Construction Co. of Texas
803 S.W.2d 731 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1990)
Lawson-Avila Construction, Inc. v. Stoutamire
791 S.W.2d 584 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
779 S.W.2d 68, 33 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 19, 1989 Tex. LEXIS 107, 1989 WL 130458, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/uvalle-v-agricultural-warehouse-inc-tex-1989.