Coulson v. Lake L.B.J. Mun. Utility Dist.
| Citation | 734 S.W.2d 649 |
| Decision Date | 01 July 1987 |
| Docket Number | Nos. C-4416,C-4417,s. C-4416 |
| Parties | Bennett COULSON & CAE, Inc., Petitioners, v. LAKE L.B.J. MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT, Respondent. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Texas |
C. Charles Dippel, Sears & Burns, Houston, for petitioners.
J. Ron Young, Rowe & Young, and Randall D. Wilkins, Houston, for respondent.
The issue in this appeal is who bears the burden of proving the breach of an implied standard of care and conduct in a contract action. The trial court placed the burden on the defendant, Lake L.B.J. Municipal Utility District. The District raised the issue as an affirmative defense of failure of consideration because the work was not good and workmanlike and as the basis for its counterclaim that the work was done negligently and fraudulently. Following trial by jury, the trial court rendered judgment generally favorable to the plaintiff, Bennett Coulson. The court of appeals reversed this judgment and remanded the cause for new trial, holding that compliance with the implied standard was an essential element of Coulson's contract claim and the District's negligence counterclaim. Also, that court held the trial court had miscast the burden of proof. 692 S.W.2d 897. We hold that the trial court properly submitted the case to the jury and we reverse the judgment of the court of appeals; however, we remand the cause to the court of appeals for consideration of other points deemed immaterial by that court.
Coulson and Associates Engineers, Inc., contracted with the District in 1971 to prepare plans and specifications to serve the District with utilities. Plans and specifications were prepared, approved by all appropriate governmental agencies and presented to the District's board. Before the date payment was due under the contract, the District discharged Coulson and Associates Engineers, Inc., and when the engineer's fee became due it did not make payment.
Subsequently, Coulson and Associates Engineers, Inc., changed its name to CAE, Inc., and assigned its contract claim for compensation to Bennett Coulson, who sued the District to collect the engineer's fee. The District filed an answer and counterclaim both of which asserted that the engineer had failed to meet a standard of reasonable engineering practice in the preparation of the plans and specifications for the District. In its answer, the District asserted failure of consideration as an affirmative defense alleging that the plans "were not prepared in a good and workmanlike manner and do not meet the standards of reasonable engineering practice." The District's counterclaim contained similar allegations and sought the return of money previously paid to the engineer as well as additional damages, both actual and punitive.
All claims were tried to a jury. The following jury issues are significant to this appeal.
Special Issue 1: Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence that during the time in question Coulson and Associates Engineers, Inc., furnished the Lake L.B.J. Municipal Utility District with sufficient plans and specifications for construction of a water system, a sanitary sewer system and drainage for the needs of such district, and to secure approvals from appropriate governmental agencies, under the circumstances then existing?
Answer: Yes.
Special Issue 6: Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence that during the time in question Coulson and Associates Engineers, Inc., was negligent in failing, if it did, to furnish adequate plans and specifications to obtain reasonable competitive bid prices for the construction work on the water system, sanitary sewer system and drainage for Lake L.B.J. Municipal Utility District, proximately causing higher costs for such construction to the District?
Answer: No.
The charge also defined "negligence" for the jury as the "failure to do that which a registered engineer of ordinary prudence engaged in designing and constructing water systems, sanitary sewer systems and drainage would have done under the same or similar circumstances or doing that which such an engineer of ordinary prudence would not have done under the same or similar circumstances."
Based on these and other findings, the trial court rendered judgment generally favorable to Coulson. The court of appeals, however, found Coulson's contract issue (Special Issue 1) defective because it did not incorporate any standard of performance; i.e., it did not require Coulson to prove that he performed the contract in a good and workmanlike manner or in accordance with appropriate standards of engineering practice. The court of appeals further stated that whether the plans satisfied appropriate standards of engineering practice was "simultaneously an essential element of each party's cause of action against the other." 692 S.W.2d at 908. The court of appeals concluded that the trial court had erred in placing the burden solely on the District to prove Coulson negligent in his preparation of the plans and specifications, and reversed the judgment and remanded the cause with instructions on how it should be submitted on retrial.
Coulson argues that the court of appeals has placed the burden on him to disprove his own negligence as a condition for recovery on the contract. Coulson argues that once he proves compliance with the express requirements of the contract, he is entitled to a presumption that the work performed was "good and workmanlike" and not negligently performed until the contrary is proven. We agree.
We are unable to discern any real difference between the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. Delanney, 9614
...performing any of these conditions can be the basis for recovery in tort as well as a breach of contract. Coulson v. Lake L.B.J. Municipal Utility District, 734 S.W.2d 649 (Tex.1987); Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Scharrenbeck, 146 Tex. 153, 204 S.W.2d 508 (1947). Southwestern Bell relies on Jim......
-
City of Austin v. Houston Lighting & Power Co.
...in every contract regardless of the parties' intentions. To support this proposition, Austin relies on Coulson v. Lake LBJ Municipal Utility District, 734 S.W.2d 649, 651 (Tex.1987); Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Scharrenbeck, 146 Tex. 153, 157, 204 S.W.2d 508, 510 (1947); and Westbrook v. Watts......
-
Melody Home Mfg. Co. v. Barnes
...The concept of good and workmanlike performance is but an expression of the reasonable care obligation. Coulson v. Lake LBJ Municipal Utility District, 734 S.W.2d 649 (Tex.1987). The court's explanation then that the warranty goes to performance not results seems to indicate that negligence......
-
Long v. NCNB-Texas Nat. Bank
...146 Tex. 153, 204 S.W.2d 508 (1947): by failing to perform "properly, the defendant breached its contract"); Coulson v. Lake L.B.J. Mun. Util. Dist., 734 S.W.2d 649, 651 (Tex.1987); Compton v. Polonski, 567 S.W.2d 835, 839 (Tex.Civ.App.--Corpus Christi 1978, no writ). The secured party's ne......
-
Table of Cases
...Costa v. Storm , 682 S.W.2d 599 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1984, writ ref’d n.r.e.), §10.20 Coulson v. Lake L.B.J. Mun. Util. Dist. , 734 S.W.2d 649, 651 (Tex. 1987), §1.02.9.2.3 Crawford v. Ace Sign , 917 S.W.2d 12 (Tex. 1996), §§1.02.8.1, 2.02.1 Crown Life Ins. Co. v. Casteel , 22 S.W......
-
Initial Client Contacts (Plaintiff)
...no real difference between the “good and workmanlike” standard and the “negligence” standard. Coulson v. Lake L.B.J. Mun. Util. Dist. , 734 S.W.2d 649, 651 (Tex. 1987); See Archibald v. Act III Arabians , 755 S.W.2d 84, 86 (Tex. 1988) (Wallace, J. concurring). The Melody Home warranty focus......