Abutahoun v. The Dow Chem. Co.
No. 13-0175
Case summary written by Samantha Kelly, Articles Editor.
JUSTICE GREEN delivered the unanimous opinion of the Court.
Dow Chemical Company contracted with Win-Way Industries to install pipelines in Dow’s facility. Between 1967 and 1968, Robert Henderson, an employee of Win-Way, helped insulate pipes with a material containing asbestos. He was also exposed to asbestos by the actions of Dow employees who were installing, sawing, and removing asbestos insulation within feet of Henderson’s work area. After Henderson was diagnosed with Mesothelioma, he sued Dow under various negligence and product liability theories of recovery.
At trial, the jury returned a verdict finding that Dow’s negligence was 30% responsible for Henderson’s injuries. The judgment against Dow amounted to $2.64 million. On appeal, Dow argued that Chapter 95 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code does not draw a distinction between a property owner’s liability for the actions of contractors, and the property owner’s liability for the actions of the property owner’s own employees. The court of appeals agreed with this interpretation, meaning that Henderson needed to establish Dow’s liability under the requirements of § 95.003 of the statute, which they failed to do. The court of appeals reversed the trial court, issuing a take nothing judgment in favor of Dow.
Issue: Does Chapter 95 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code apply to an independent contractor’s claims against a property owner when the claim is based on an injury stemming from the property owner’s negligence, not the negligence of the independent contractor?
The Court affirmed the court of appeals, finding in favor of Dow. Section 95.002 explains that Chapter 95 applies to claims against a property owner that arise from the condition or use of an improvement to property where the employee of a contractor modifies the improvement. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 95.002. Section 95.003 limits the property owner’s liability to an employee of a contractor so that the property owner is not liable for personal injury or death arising from the failure to provide a safe workplace, unless the property owner exercises control over the work performed and the property owner had actual knowledge of the dangerous work conditions. Id. § 95.003.
The Court noted that Chapter 95 is unambiguous. As a result, it looked to the plain meaning of the statute, setting aside statutory construction techniques specific to ambiguous statutes. That statute lists who a claim may be asserted against, but it says nothing about the actor who is responsible for the existence of the negligence claim and it makes no distinction between injuries caused by the contractor’s actions and injuries caused by someone else’s actions. The Court also looked to its jurisprudence under the Texas Tort Claims Act for guidance in defining the other terms in the statute. Given this body of case law, the Court found that the Legislature intended for Chapter 95 to apply to all negligence claims arising from the negligence of a property owner.
Accordingly, the Court held that Chapter 95 applies to a claim against a property owner for a contractor’s death caused by the property owner’s negligence. This being the proper interpretation of § 95.002, Henderson had to prove the evidentiary burdens set out in § 95.003 in order to show the causal link between Dow’s negligence and Henderson’s injuries. He did not do so at trial, and therefore Dow could not be subject to liability under Chapter 95.