Summary
The Texas Supreme Court held that a nonsubscribing employer is not entitled to submit a jury question concerning an employee's alleged comparative responsibility in a personal-injury action. Because Texas Labor Code section 406.033 precludes a finding of contributory negligence, and such a finding is a prerequisite to comparative responsibility, the court affirmed the judgment for the employee.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Texas Labor Code section 406.033 precludes a nonsubscribing employer from asserting an employee's alleged comparative responsibility as a defense.
- Whether a nonsubscribing employer is entitled to a jury question asking the jury to determine the employee's comparative responsibility for work-related injuries.
- Whether Texas Workers' Compensation Commission v. Garcia required or permitted submission of a comparative-responsibility question in a nonsubscriber personal-injury action.
Holdings
- A nonsubscribing employer is not entitled to a jury question on its employee's alleged comparative responsibility. Section 406.033's prohibition against relying on contributory negligence also prohibits reliance on the statutory comparative-responsibility defense because a finding of contributory negligence is a prerequisite to determining comparative responsibility.
- Garcia does not require or authorize submission of a comparative-responsibility question in a nonsubscriber personal-injury action because the relevant discussion in Garcia described a hypothetical common-law remedy and was not an interpretation of the Workers' Compensation Act.
Key quotations
“It follows that by expressly precluding employers from relying on common-law contributory negligence, section 406.033 effectively prohibits an employer from relying on the statutory comparative-responsibility defense.” (352-353)
“We therefore hold that a nonsubscribing employer is not entitled to a jury question on its employee's alleged comparative responsibility.” (353)
Factual background
Sonja Keng, a Kroger employee, was removing pie boxes from the top shelf of a deli freezer while standing on a ladder. Three boxes fell and struck her back, knocking her from the ladder and causing her chest to hit a cart. Keng sued Kroger, a workers' compensation nonsubscriber, alleging that Kroger's negligence proximately caused her injuries. The jury found Kroger negligent and awarded Keng $30,000.
Procedural history
Keng sued Kroger for work-related injuries, alleging that Kroger's negligence proximately caused them. The jury found Kroger negligent and awarded Keng $30,000; the trial court rendered judgment on the verdict. The court of appeals affirmed, rejecting Kroger's factual-sufficiency challenge and its complaint that the trial court refused to submit a comparative-responsibility question. The Supreme Court of Texas affirmed the court of appeals.