Shane Puckett, Volume 50 Articles Editor
CHIEF JUSTICE HECHT DELIVERED THE OPINION FOR THE COURT.
The issue in this case was whether an employer had a duty to control its employees when two employees engaged in a physical altercation which led to the death of a third party.
In Pagayon v. Exxon Mobil, J.R. Pagayon (J.R.) and Carlos Cabulang (Cabulang) worked as cashiers at a convenience store owned by Exxon Mobil Corporation (Exxon). Issues arose between the two cashiers when J.R. accused Cabulang of harassment. The tension grew and ultimately culminated in a fistfight. Cabulang physically attacked both J.R. and his father Alfredo—who was present in the store at the time of the incident. As a result of the fight, Alfredo was sent to the emergency room. Alfredo subsequently died twenty-three days later after one of his organ’s failed. J.R. then filed suit against Exxon for wrongful death and survivor damages. At trial, an issue arose as to whether Exxon had a duty to control its employees—specifically, Cabulang. The Supreme Court of Texas ultimately concluded that Exxon owed no duty to supervise its employees.
In a negligence or wrongful death case, the threshold question is whether a duty was owed to the party that allegedly suffered harm. Generally, no duty to control others exists. However, in circumstances where no such duty exists, the inquiry is whether one should be imposed. As a result, a court may consider a variety of factors in determining whether a duty should be imposed under a particular set of facts. These factors include: (1) the weight of the risk involved; (2) foreseeability; (3) the likelihood of injury; and (4) the burden imposed on the defendant.
Here, the Supreme Court of Texas refused to impose a duty under the circumstances and held that Exxon did not owe a duty to supervise its employees. Instead of taking this opportunity to generally define an employer’s duty to its employees, the Court employed a balancing test. The Court reasoned that the risk of an incurrence such as this was small, the foreseeability of similar injury was minimal, and to impose a duty upon Exxon would be significantly burdensome. Therefore, Exxon did not owe a duty under the circumstances. The concurrence wrote separately to insist that the Court should define an employer’s duty so as to provide guidance to trial courts in similar situations.
Pagayon v. Exxon Mobil Corp., No. 15-0642 (Tex. June 23, 2017).