McMillan v. Hearne
| Decision Date | 22 July 2019 |
| Docket Number | No. 06-18-00040-CV,06-18-00040-CV |
| Citation | 584 S.W.3d 505 |
| Parties | Charles Duncan MCMILLAN d/b/a Anthony Sign Company, Appellant v. Kelly Shane HEARNE, Appellee |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
James R. Rodgers, Lead Counsel, Sarah L. Kaminar, The Moore Law Firm, LLP, 100 North Main St., Paris, TX 75460, for Appellant.
Bruce K. Thomas, Lead Counsel, Law Office of Bruce K. Thomas, 3710 Rawlins St., Ste. 975, Dallas, TX 75207, T. Dean Malone, Law Offices of Dean Malone PC, 900 Jackson St., Ste. 730, Dallas, TX 75202, for Appellee.
Before Morriss, C.J., Burgess and Stevens, JJ.
On November 2, 2016, Kelly Shane Hearne filed a personal injury suit against his employer, Charles Duncan McMillan d/b/a Anthony Sign Company (McMillan), a nonsubscriber to the workers' compensation system. See TEX. LAB. CODE ANN. § 406.033. Hearne alleged that on September 14, 2015, while he was at the top of a commercial extension ladder, he fell as a result of the ladder slipping after McMillan stopped supporting the ladder at the bottom. The jury found that McMillan was liable for Hearne's injuries, and it awarded him past and future damages in the amount of $427,818.38.
McMillan appeals, maintaining that (1) the evidence was legally and factually insufficient to support the jury's finding of negligence and (2) the trial court committed reversible error by failing to offset the jury's award of past medical damages in the appropriate amount. Hearne cross-appealed, contending that (1) the trial court erred in failing to render judgment on the jury verdict for all the past damages awarded by the jury, (2) even if the trial court had authority to award an offset to McMillan, it erred in doing so because the offset violated the collateral source rule and McMillan failed to obtain findings on which he had the burden of proof, and (3) alternatively, the judgment should be modified to reflect an offset in past damages in the amount of $65,521.88.
For the reasons below, we affirm the trial court's judgment, as modified.
In September 2015, McMillan had been hired to restore the marquee sign of the Grand Theatre in Paris, Texas. At the time, Hearne had been working for McMillan for about twenty-five years. According to Hearne, per McMillan's instructions, he had gone to the theatre in the company bucket truck where he tried, but failed, to reach the sign by using the bucket. In a subsequent effort to reach the sign, Hearne intended to access the roof from the inside of the theatre. To that end, Hearne contacted McMillan and asked him to bring the thirty-foot-long extension ladder that was kept on McMillan's truck. McMillan complied with Hearne's request and brought the ladder to the theatre.
Hearne testified that after McMillan arrived, he carried the "fly" or expansion portion of the ladder inside the theatre, while McMillan carried the bottom portion of the ladder. According to Hearne, the two of them began to position the fly portion of the ladder to access the theater attic. Hearne then climbed the ladder while McMillan held it at the bottom. When Hearne reached the attic, he realized his flashlight was not working. Hearne told McMillan that he needed to retrieve another flashlight or find some new batteries. Hearne testified that he believed McMillan would wait for him to descend the ladder.
Hearne began descending the ladder; however, when he looked down, he saw that McMillan had walked away from the ladder and was exiting the theatre. According to Hearne, the ladder almost immediately slipped, and Hearne fell to the concrete floor. Hearne attempted to save himself by reaching around him, but because the attic floor was made of smooth plywood, there was nothing he could hold onto.
McMillan disputed Hearne's version of events. McMillan testified that when he arrived at the theatre, he carried the extension ladder into the building and placed it on the floor near the area in which Hearne was standing. McMillan testified that he told Hearne "to hold on and that he was going to go retrieve a flashlight." When asked where Hearne was located at the time he went to get the flashlight, McMillan stated, "Standing right where he had been, right between where I was standing and where the hatch was -- or where the -- area of the hatch." According to McMillan, both Hearne and the extension ladder were standing on the floor when he walked out of the theatre.
McMillan explained that the truck was near the theatre door. He stated, "So I just walked around it, opened up the side bin, and was about to -- I think I picked up the flashlight, and then I heard [Hearne] screaming." McMillan ran back inside the theatre where he saw Hearne "laying on the floor in pain." McMillan stated that the ladder was on the ground in its extended position. Thus, McMillan maintained that he was not present when Hearne fell and that he never supported the ladder for Hearne.
Immediately following his fall, Hearne was airlifted to the Medical Center of Plano, where he received surgery on his hip. Two or three days later, he underwent surgery on his wrist, elbow, and shoulder. According to Hearne, three of his ribs and his collarbone were also broken. Although McMillan did not carry workers' compensation insurance, he provided an Occupational Injury Benefit Plan (the Plan) that paid certain benefits, including medical expenses to, or on behalf of, Hearne. After the incident, Hearne sued McMillan for negligence. McMillan sought an offset against the damages paid to Hearne for benefits paid by the Plan. The jury found in favor of Hearne. The trial court found that McMillan was entitled to an offset in the amount of $91,911.02. It then entered judgment in favor of Hearne for the amounts awarded by the jury, less offset. This appeal followed.
Hearne contends that McMillan was negligent when he, among other things, (1) failed to adequately help Hearne in the performance of his work, (2) failed to provide a safe place for McMillan to work when he provided him with an unsafe ladder, and (3) failed to inspect the ladder. In his first and second issues, McMillan contends that there was legally and factually insufficient evidence to support the jury's finding of negligence.
Chesser v. LifeCare Mgmt. Servs., L.L.C. , 356 S.W.3d 613, 618–19 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2011, pet. denied) (citing Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Co. v. Martinez , 977 S.W.2d 328, 334 (Tex. 1998) ); see Jelinek v. Casas , 328 S.W.3d 526, 532 (Tex. 2010).
More than a scintilla of evidence exists when the evidence reaches a level enabling reasonable and fair-minded people to differ in their conclusions. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc. v. Havner , 953 S.W.2d 706, 711 (Tex. 1997). "Less than a scintilla of evidence exists when the evidence is ‘so weak as to do no more than create a mere surmise or suspicion’ of a fact." King Ranch, Inc. v. Chapman , 118 S.W.3d 742, 751 (Tex. 2003) (quoting Kindred v. Con/Chem, Inc. , 650 S.W.2d 61, 63 (Tex. 1983) ).
When reviewing a jury verdict for factual sufficiency of the evidence, we consider and weigh all the evidence and only set aside the verdict if "we determine that the credible evidence supporting the finding is so weak, or so contrary to the overwhelming weight of all the evidence, that the answer should be set aside and a new trial ordered." Chesser , 356 S.W.3d at 619 (quoting Pool v. Ford Motor Co. , 715 S.W.2d 629, 635 (Tex. 1986) ); see Cain v. Bain , 709 S.W.2d 175, 176 (Tex. 1986) (per curiam).
To prove negligence, evidence must be produced to establish a duty, a breach of duty, and damages proximately caused by the breach. Alexander v. Turtur & Assocs., Inc. , 146 S.W.3d 113, 117 (Tex. 2004). Because McMillan is a worker's compensation nonsubscriber, McMillan is not afforded the common-law defenses of contributory negligence, assumption of the risk, or negligence of a fellow servant. See TEX. LAB. CODE ANN. § 406.033(a) ; Kroger Co. v. Keng , 23 S.W.3d 347, 350 (Tex. 2000). Thus, there are only two defenses available to McMillan, namely, (1) that he was not liable for negligence proximately causing Hearne's injuries or (2) that Hearne was responsible for some act which was the sole proximate cause of the occurrence. See W. Star Transp. v. Robison , 457 S.W.3d 178, 187 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2015). "Accordingly, if any negligent act by [McMillan] was a substantial factor in bringing about [Hearne's] fall and subsequent injuries, and if that event was a foreseeable occurrence without which the fall and injuries would not have occurred, then liability has been established." See id.
An employer has a primary, continuing, and nondelegable duty to provide a safe place and safe conditions in which employees may work. Cabrera v. Delta Brands, Inc. , 538 S.W.2d 795, 797 (Tex. Civ. App.—Texarkana 1976, writ ref'd n.r.e.). In addition, an employer has a duty to furnish the employee with safe and suitable equipment so that he...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wal-Mart Stores Tex. v. Autrey
...and the finding was not so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence as to be clearly wrong and unjust. See McMillan v. Hearne, 584 S.W.3d 505, 512 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2019, no pet.); Petrohawk Props., L.P., 455 S.W.3d at 779. Accordingly, we overrule this point of error.III. The......
-
Gusman v. Kroger Tex., L.P.
...“duty to furnish [Gusman] with safe and suitable equipment so that [s]he may carry on the work with reasonable safety.” See McMillian v. Hearne, 584 S.W.3d 505, 512 App.-Texarkana 2019, no pet.). Although “a cart strap could not have been used on a train of 50 shopping carts, ” Doc. 38, Def......
-
Columbia Valley Healthcare Sys. L.P. v. Andrade
...is not entitled to present evidence of, or obtain an offset for, funds received by the plaintiff from a collateral source. McMillan v. Hearne , 584 S.W.3d 505, 520 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2019, no pet.) (quoting Taylor v. Am. Fabritech, Inc. , 132 S.W.3d 613, 626 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.......
-
CHAPTER 10.I. Motion Authorities
...rule prevented evidence of insurance payments made to plaintiff under policy plaintiff had obtained on his own). McMillan v. Hearne, 584 S.W.3d 505, 519 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2019, no pet.) ("The theory behind the collateral source rule is that a wrongdoer should not have the benefit of insu......