Turner v. Monsanto Co., C14-85-635-CV
| Decision Date | 31 July 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. C14-85-635-CV,C14-85-635-CV |
| Citation | 717 S.W.2d 378 |
| Parties | Harold TURNER, Appellant, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Appellee. (14th Dist.) |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Gene Hagood, Alvin, for appellant.
Ervin Apffel, Jr., Galveston, Phillip C. Bowen, El Paso, B. Lee Ware, Kenneth Tekell, Houston, Otto D. Hewitt, III, Barry H. Summer, Galveston, for appellee.
Before JUNELL, DRAUGHN and ELLIS, JJ.
Harold Turner appeals a take-nothing judgment in favor of Monsanto Company. His suit was for damages for an injury he sustained while working at Monsanto's Texas City plant. Monsanto had filed a third-party action for indemnity against Turner's employer, Opel Maintenance Company. The trial court judgment denied Monsanto any recovery against Opel.
Turner alleges the trial court erred by failing to admit into evidence a settlement agreement between Monsanto and Opel and by allowing Opel to participate in the trial after the settlement agreement had been made. We affirm.
Opel Maintenance Company employed appellant to install sewer lines at Monsanto's Texas City plant. Appellant had been working in a sump or trap for about a month prior to his injury. Pipes bearing organic materials and water emptied into the sump where the organics and water were separated. Monsanto had the responsibility to plug the pipes before the workers entered the sump. After work one day appellant was attempting to climb into the bed of a pickup truck when his foot slipped and he fell into the truck, injuring his leg. Appellant claims he slipped because he had gotten slippery materials, which had leaked into the sump, on his shoes.
In the contract for the work at Monsanto, Opel had agreed to completely indemnify Monsanto for any liability arising out of an accident where concurrent negligence was found. Late one afternoon several days into the trial, Opel and Monsanto changed their indemnity agreement. Opel agreed to pay 30% of any judgment against Monsanto up to $500,000. The next day Monsanto and Opel informed the court and appellant of the terms of the new agreement. The court denied appellant's motion to exclude Opel from further participation in the trial and refused to admit the settlement agreement into evidence.
Appellant's first and second points of error assert the trial court erred in excluding evidence of the indemnity agreement because the agreement gave Opel a financial interest in appellant's recovery.
As a general rule, evidence of a settlement agreement should be withheld from the jury. General Motors Corporation v. Simmons, 558 S.W.2d 855 (Tex.1977). Agreements in which a plaintiff settles a claim against one of several defendants by agreeing to pay the settling defendant a part of any judgment recovered against the non-settling defendant are called "Mary Carter" agreements. Evidence of "Mary Carter" agreements should be admitted into evidence as a proper subject of cross-examination; exclusion of such evidence is harmful error. General Motors, supra at 859.
In City of Houston v. Sam P. Wallace and Co., 585 S.W.2d 669 (Tex.1979) the city's suit against a contractor and subcontractor was consolidated with the subcontractor's employee's action against the contractor. The employee secretly settled with the contractor, agreeing not to argue negligence against him at trial. The supreme court found error in refusing to grant the city's motions for mistrial and new trial. The agreement was held to have resulted in a misalignment of parties which was reasonably calculated to cause and probably did cause the rendition of an improper judgment.
The Opel-Monsanto agreement was not a "Mary Carter" agreement nor did it result in a misalignment of parties. The agreement merely changed the extent of Opel's liability to Monsanto. Under the original indemnity contract, Opel was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ohrt v. Union Gas Corp.
...at trial when the jury was aware that a settlement with those defendants had been reached); Turner v. Monsanto Co., 717 S.W.2d 378, 381 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1986, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (allowing settling defendant to participate in trial where it retained an interest in the litigatio......
-
Parkway Hosp., Inc. v. Lee
...Whitener v. Traders and General Ins. Co., 155 Tex. 461, 289 S.W.2d 233, 236 (1956); see also Turner v. Monsanto Co., 717 S.W.2d 378, 381 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1986, writ ref'd n.r.e.). A successful challenge to evidentiary rulings usually requires the complaining party to show tha......
-
Automobile Ins. Co. of Hartford Connecticut v. Davila
...to the main trial issue, refusing to admit the settlement evidence is not reversible error. Turner v. Monsanto Co., 717 S.W.2d 378, 381 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1986, writ ref'd n.r.e.). Here, Aetna offered the evidence to counter allegations of delay. The delay about which Donna com......
-
Ohrt v. Union Gas Corp.
...at trial when the jury was aware that a settlement with those defendants had been reached); Turner v. Monsanto Co., 717 S.W.2d 378, 381 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1986, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (allowing settling defendant to participate in trial where it retained an interest in the litigati......