Kroger Co. v. Elwood
Citation | 197 S.W.3d 793 |
Decision Date | 12 May 2006 |
Docket Number | No. 04-1133.,04-1133. |
Parties | THE KROGER CO., Petitioner, v. Billy ELWOOD, Respondent. |
Court | Supreme Court of Texas |
Brian J. Brandstetter, Brackett & Ellis, P.C., Fort Worth, for Petitioner.
Rodney R. Elkins, Rodney R. Elkins & Co., Dallas, for Respondent.
Billy Elwood, a courtesy clerk at a Kroger grocery store, was injured when a customer shut her vehicle door on his hand while he was transferring items from a grocery cart to the vehicle. Elwood had placed one hand in the vehicle's doorjamb, and one foot on the cart, to keep the cart from rolling down a slope in Kroger's parking lot. In the trial court, a jury found Kroger liable for Elwood's injuries; the court of appeals affirmed the judgment. Because Kroger had no duty to warn Elwood not to place his hand in a doorjamb, and there is no evidence that additional equipment or assistance were needed to perform Elwood's job safely, we reverse and render judgment for Kroger.
Kroger is a nonsubscriber to workers' compensation; therefore, to recover damages Elwood must establish that Kroger's negligence proximately caused his injuries. See Werner v. Colwell, 909 S.W.2d 866, 868 (Tex.1995). Elwood alleges that Kroger provided inadequate training on how to maneuver carts on a sloped parking lot, never advised that he should take a second clerk with him to the sloped portion of the lot, and provided no explanation on how to avoid injury when loading groceries into customers' vehicles. Elwood also alleges that, even though Kroger was aware that customers' vehicles were often damaged by rolling carts in the sloped parking area, it never provided carts with locking wheels or wheel blocks.
A jury found Kroger liable for Elwood's injuries, but also determined that Elwood was forty percent negligent. The trial court reduced Elwood's judgment accordingly. A divided court of appeals affirmed the verdict, holding it was supported by factually and legally sufficient evidence. 2004 WL 2567069. Because nonsubscribers are not entitled to a contributory negligence instruction, the court of appeals reformed the judgment and awarded Elwood one hundred percent of the damages. 2004 WL 2567069 (citing Kroger Co. v. Keng, 23 S.W.3d 347, 352 (Tex.2000)). Kroger now petitions for review, arguing that there is no evidence to support the jury's verdict.
To establish negligence, a party must establish a duty, a breach of that duty, and damages proximately caused by the breach. Werner, 909 S.W.2d at 869 (citing El Chico Corp. v. Poole, 732 S.W.2d 306, 311 (Tex.1987)). Whether a duty exists is a threshold inquiry and a question of law; liability cannot be imposed if no duty exists. Van Horn v. Chambers, 970 S.W.2d 542, 544 (Tex.1998).
An employer has a duty to use ordinary care in providing a safe workplace. Farley v. M M Cattle Co., 529 S.W.2d 751, 754 (Tex.1975). It must, for example, warn an employee of the hazards of employment and provide needed safety equipment or assistance. Id. However, an employer is not an insurer of its employees' safety. Leitch v. Hornsby, 935 S.W.2d 114, 117 (Tex.1996); Exxon Corp. v. Tidwell, 867 S.W.2d 19, 21 (Tex.1993). It owes no duty to warn of hazards that are commonly known or already appreciated by the employee. See Nat'l Convenience Stores, Inc. v. Matherne, 987 S.W.2d 145, 149 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.). It has no duty to provide equipment or assistance that is unnecessary to the job's safe performance. See Allsup's Convenience Stores, Inc. v. Warren, 934 S.W.2d 433, 438 (Tex.App.— Amarillo 1996, writ denied). And, when an employee's injury results from performing the same character of work that employees in that position have always done, an employer is not liable if there is no evidence that the work is unusually precarious. Werner, 909 S.W.2d at 869 (citing Great Atl. & Pac....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
HNMC, Inc. v. Chan
...defendant had a legal duty. Nabors Drilling, U.S.A., Inc. v. Escoto , 288 S.W.3d 401, 404 (Tex. 2009) ; see Kroger Co. v. Elwood , 197 S.W.3d 793, 795 (Tex. 2006) (per curiam) (noting that "liability cannot be imposed if no duty exists."). A duty is a legal obligation that requires the defe......
-
Newton v. State
...No. 10-02-00349-CV, 2004 Tex. App. LEXIS 10119, 2004 WL 2567069 (Tex. App.—Waco Nov. 10, 2004) (mem.op.) (Vance, J.), rev'd, 197 S.W.3d 793 (Tex.2006) (per curiam); Lingafelter v. Shupe, 154 S.W.3d 233 (Tex.App.—Waco 2005) (Vance, J.), rev'd, 192 S.W.3d 577 (Tex.2006) (per curiam). 1. The i......
-
Williamson v. American National Insurance Company
...the existence of a legal duty, (2) a breach of that duty, and (3) damages that were proximately caused by the breach. Kroger Co. v. Elwood, 197 S.W.3d 793, 794 (Tex.2006). In Gonzales v. Fidelity Distributors Corp., No. Civ. A. 3:00cv1197, 2003 WL 21266707, *4 (N.D.Tex. May 30, 2003), the c......
-
General Elec. Co. v. Moritz
...nondelegable duties to provide safe workplace, hire competent co-employees, and provide safety regulations); Kroger Co. v. Elwood, 197 S.W.3d 793, 794 (Tex.2006) (noting employers' duties to warn employees of hazards of employment and provide needed safety equipment or assistance); Farley v......
-
Discrimination claims under labor code chapter 451
...are precluded from asserting the defense of comparative responsibility in a personal injury action. In Kroger Co. v. Elwood , 197 S.W.3d 793 (Tex. 2006), the Texas Supreme Court recently held that a non-subscriber was not liable for a workplace injury caused to an employee by a danger that ......
-
Employment Relationship Defined
...employee. It has no duty to provide equipment or assistance that is unnecessary to the job’s safe performance.” Kroger Co. v. Elwood , 197 S.W.3d 793, 794-95 (Tex. 2006); see also Brookshire Grocery Co. v. Goss , 262 S.W.3d 793, 794-795 (Tex. 2008) (discussing Elwood ). 1:5. EMPLOYMENT IS A......
-
Discrimination Claims Under Labor Code Chapter 451
...are precluded from asserting the defense of comparative responsibility in a personal injury action. In Kroger Co. v. Elwood , 197 S.W.3d 793 (Tex. 2006), the Texas Supreme Court recently held that a non-subscriber was not liable for a workplace injury caused to an employee by a danger that ......
-
Employment relationship defined
...employee. It has no duty to provide equipment or assistance that is unnecessary to the job’s safe performance.” Kroger Co. v. Elwood , 197 S.W.3d 793, 794-95 (Tex. 2006); see also Brookshire Grocery Co. v. Goss , 262 S.W.3d 793, 794-795 (Tex. 2008) (discussing Elwood ). 1:5. EMPLOYMENT IS A......