Gore v. Amoco Production Co., 17898
| Decision Date | 19 March 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 17898,17898 |
| Citation | 616 S.W.2d 289 |
| Parties | Lucy GORE, Appellant, v. AMOCO PRODUCTION COMPANY, Appellee. (1st Dist.) |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Paul R. Fransway, Williams & Boyd, Houston, for appellant.
Avarita L. Hanson, Fulbright & Jaworski, Houston, for appellee.
Before EVANS, WARREN and DOYLE, JJ.
This is a common law personal injury action brought by an employee against her employer. The plaintiff alleged that she was injured when she fell over a roll of carpeting lying in the hallway of her employer's premises during the course of remodeling work.
The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of the employer, concluding, as a matter of law, that the exclusivity provisions of the Texas Workers' Compensation Act, Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 8306, §§ 3 and 3a precluded the plaintiff's recovery. The record indicates that the plaintiff had received the sum of $16,500 from the employer's compensation carrier pursuant to a court approved settlement, and the sole question before this court is whether the plaintiff was entitled to assert a common law action against the employer on the theory that the employer, having acted in a dual capacity, was liable both as an employer and as an occupier of the premises.
The Texas Workers' Compensation Act provides, in effect, that an employee of a subscriber has no common law right of action to recover damages for injuries sustained in the course of employment unless appropriate notice is given to the employer, as provided in the Act, at the time the employment contract is made.
This court has held than an employee who had received compensation under the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C.A. § 901 et seq., was not precluded from recovering damages based upon the alleged unseaworthy condition of the vessel upon which he was injured. Terry v. Southeast Packing Co., 416 S.W.2d 624 (Tex.Civ.App. Houston 1967, no writ). However, in that case this court was governed by an express holding by the United States Supreme Court that the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act did not bar an action based upon the unseaworthiness of the employer's vessel. Reed v. S.S. Yaka, 373 U.S. 410, 83 S.Ct. 1349, 10 L.Ed. 448 (1963).
The so called "dual capacity" doctrine has recently been rejected by a Texas Court of Civil Appeals in a products liability case, and the Texas Supreme Court has refused application for review of that case, finding no...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Payne v. Galen Hosp. Corp.
...1989, no writ); Davis v. Sinclair Ref. Co., 704 S.W.2d 413, 415 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1985, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Gore v. Amoco Prod. Co., 616 S.W.2d 289, 290 (Tex. Civ. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1981, no writ); Cohn v. Spinks Indus., Inc., 602 S.W.2d 102, 103-04 (Tex. Civ. App.--D......
-
Freese v. Consolidated Rail Corp.; City of Cincinnati
...(1976), 92 Nev. 447, 552 P.2d 337; Parker v. Williams & Madjanik, Inc. (1980), 275 S.C. 65, 267 S.E.2d 524; Gore v. Amoco Production Co. (Tex.Civ.App.1981), 616 S.W.2d 289; and Hudson v. Allen (1968), 11 Mich.App. 511, 161 N.W.2d 596. See, also, 2A Larson, Workmen's Compensation Law, Sectio......
-
Sullivan v. Atlantic Federal Sav. & Loan Ass'n.
...134 Cal. App.3d 362, 184 Cal. Rptr. 560 (1982); Holzworth v. Fuller, 122 N.H. 643, 448 A.2d 394 (1982); Gore v. Amoco Production Co., 616 S.W.2d 289 (Tex.Civ.App.1981); Stone v. United States Steel Corp., 384 So.2d 17 We conclude that this case falls within the latter category of cases, whe......
-
Izaguirre v. Texas Employers' Ins. Ass'n
...may not bring a separate action for the same injury. Massey v. Armco Steel Co., 652 S.W.2d 932, 933 (Tex.1983); Gore v. Amoco Production Co., 616 S.W.2d 289, 290 (Tex.Civ.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1981, no writ). However, as discussed previously, bad faith is not an employment injury, but i......