Leadon v. Kimbrough Bros. Lumber Co.
| Decision Date | 19 July 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. B--2940,B--2940 |
| Parties | Joe Walter LEADON, Petitioner, v. KIMBROUGH BROTHERS LUMBER COMPANY et al., Respondents. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Krist, McConnico & Jones, Kenneth D. McConnico and Ronald D. Krist, Houston, for petitioner.
Joe Davis Foster, Center, for respondents.
Joe Walter Leadon brought this action against M. E. Kimbrough and Doyle Kimbrough and their partnership, Kimbrough Brothers Lumber Co., to recover damages for personal injuries received by Leadon while he was working as an employee for the defendants. Kimbrough was subject to the Workmen's Compensation Act but was not a subscriber to or covered by workmen's compensation insurance. Art. 8306, Sec. 1, Vernon's Ann.Tex.Civ.St. is applicable. After obtaining favorable findings in he jury verdict, Leadon recovered $4400 against the defendants by the trial court judgment. The Court of civil appeals reversed and rendered judgment that Leadon take nothing. 469 S.W.2d 408. The judgment of the trial court will be reinstated.
Leadon worked in the woods of East Texas operating a power saw to fell trees and saw them into logs. On the pertinent occasion, July 10, 1967, he had just cut down a large oak tree which fell through other large adjacent trees. While he was cutting the fallen tree into logs, a limb fell from above and knocked him into the blade of his saw.
Terry Bussey was working with Leadon at the time and witnessed the injury. Bussey was a twenty year old college student hired by Kimbrough some three weeks earlier to work with Leadon. His tasks included measuring the fallen trees to mark for the length of the logs and to bring oil and gas for the power saw; and there was testimony that he had been directed to watch for falling limbs. Bussey testified that he had kept a lookout and had warned Leadon of hanging or falling limbs, but he said that he just forgot to look on this particular occasion. The jury found that Bussey was negligent in failing to keep a lookout and that this negligence was a proximate cause of Leadon's injury.
The court of civil appeals held against Leadon on the ground that he had failed to establish that Kimbrough owed him the duty to hire someone to watch for falling limbs. An employer's duty is to exercise care to provide the employee with a reasonably safe place to work. Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Robinson, 154 Tex. 336 280 S.W.2d 238 (1955): Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company v. McGee, 396 S.W.2d 896 (Tex.Civ.App.1965, writ ref. n.r.e.). This is a legal standard, and we would be unwilling to restrict this rule of law to hold that the employer of a logger has no legal duty under any circumstances to exercise care to prevent objects falling from above upon the employee. But see Davis v. W. T. Carter & Bro., 19 S.W.2d 336 (Tex.Civ.App.1929, writ ref.).
The court of civil appeals further held that, because of testimony that it was not the custom in the timber industry to provide a lookout for the man with the saw, 'it devolves upon the plaintiff, before he can recover, to produce evidence showing that such custom is negligent.' 469 S.W.2d 411. If Leadon were contending that the employer's liability was predicated upon a failure to provide a safe place to work and to furnish someone to watch for falling limbs, the custom in the industry would be proper evidence on the issue of negligence but it would not be controlling. Brown v. Lundell, 162 Tex. 84, 344 S.W.2d 863 (1961); Honea v. Coca Cola Bottling Co., 143 Tex. 272, 183 S.W.2d 968 (1944); Comanche Duke Oil Co. v. Texas Pac. Coal & Oil Co., 298 S.W. 554 (Tex.Com.App.1927). The ultimate question for the jury to decide in that event would be whether a failure to provide such a lookout constituted negligence. However, the contention here is that Terry Bussey was negligent in failing to keep a proper lookout for this danger. The trial court judgment is based upon jury findings in favor of this contention. If Leadon has proved that his injuries were proximately caused by the negligence of an employee of Kimbrough acting within the scope of his employment, under the provisions of Art. 8306, Sec. 1 he is entitled to recovery. Najera v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, 146 Tex. 367, 207 S.W.2d 365 (1948); Railway Express Agency, Inc. v. Gray, 211 S.W.2d 1013 (Tex.Civ.App.1948, writ ref. n.r.e.).
It was uncontroverted that Bussey was employed by Kimbrough to work as an assistant to Leadon. Both Leadon and Bussey testified that Bussey did in fact undertake to keep watch for hanging or falling limbs. Special issues were answered by the jury in Leadon's favor to the effect that Bussey was engaged in the furtherance of Kimbrough Brothers business at the time of the occurrence and that Bussey's failure to keep a lookout was negligence and a proximate cause of Leadon's injury. The jury was not asked specifically if Bussey undertook to keep the lookout in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Austin v. Kroger Tex., L.P.
...549 (Tex.2001) ; Werner, 909 S.W.2d at 868 ; Hernandez v. City of Fort Worth, 617 S.W.2d 923, 925 (Tex.1981) ; Leadon v. Kimbrough Bros. Lumber Co., 484 S.W.2d 567, 568 (Tex.1972) ; Royal Indem. Co. v. Dennis, 410 S.W.2d 185, 187 (Tex.1966) ; Tarver v. Tarver, 394 S.W.2d 780, 782 (Tex.1965)......
-
Kareh v. Windrum
...case. Kissinger v. Turner, 727 S.W.2d 750, 755 (Tex. App.–Fort Worth 1987, writ ref'd n.r.e.) : see generally Leadon v. Kimbrough Bros. Lumber Co., 484 S.W.2d 567, 569 (Tex. 1972) (noting that evidence of custom is pertinent in determining negligence).8 The testimony of what a particular ph......
-
Darensburg v. Tobey, 05-93-01566-CV
...of the employer's business; and (3) is for the accomplishment of the object for which the employee was hired. Leadon v. Kimbrough Bros. Lumber Co., 484 S.W.2d 567, 569 (Tex.1972); Robertson Tank Lines, Inc. v. Van Cleave, 468 S.W.2d 354, 357 At least one court has treated these two tests as......
-
Austin v. Kroger Tex., L.P., 14-0216
...549 (Tex. 2001); Werner, 909 S.W.2d at 868; Hernandez v. City of Fort Worth, 617 S.W.2d 923, 925 (Tex. 1981); Leadon v. Kimbrough Bros. Lumber Co., 484 S.W.2d 567, 568 (Tex. 1972); Royal Indem. Co. v. Dennis, 410 S.W.2d 185, 187 (Tex. 1966); Tarver v. Tarver, 394 S.W.2d 780, 782 (Tex. 1965)......
-
Employee safety and health
...supervisor), the employer remains liable for any breach of duty by the supervisor. For example, in Leadon v. Kimbrough Bros. Lumber Co. , 484 S.W.2d 567 (Tex. 1972), the plaintiff was injured when another employee negligently failed to keep a proper lookout. The other employee’s negligence ......
-
Employment Relationship Defined
...the negligence of their employees if committed in the course and scope of employment. See, e.g. , Leadon v. Kimbrough Bros. Lumber Co. , 484 S.W.2d 567, 569 (Tex. 1972); Robertson Tank Lines, Inc. v. Van Cleave, 468 S.W.2d 354, 357 (Tex. 1971). Since an independent contractor has sole contr......
-
Other workplace torts
...Other Workplace Torts §30:2 - accomplishment of the purpose for which the employee was hired. See Leadon v. Kimbrough Bros. Lumber Co. , 484 S.W.2d 567, 569 (Tex. 1972); Wilie v. Signature Geophysical Servs. , 65 S.W.3d 355, 359 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, pet. denied) (to establi......
-
Table of cases
...v. Conoco, Inc. , 892 S.W.2d 954 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1995, writ dism’d w.o.j.), §3:9.B Leadon v. Kimbrough Bros. Lumber Co. , 484 S.W.2d 567 (Tex. 1972), §§1:6.D.1, 10:3.A, 30:2.C.1 Leadon v. Kimbrough Bros. Lumber Co. , 867 S.W.2d 19 (Tex. 1972), §19:2 League of United Latin Am.......