LEELEW~1 - Page 1 70 S.W.3d 778, *; 2001 Tex. LEXIS 132, *;...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Page 1 70 S.W.3d 778, *; 2001 Tex. LEXIS 132, **; 45 Tex. Sup. J. 232 LEE LEWIS CONSTRUCTION, INC., PETITIONER v. NORMA HARRISON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT FRIEND OF SUMER DAWN HARRISON AND JIMMIE THOR HARRISON, MINORS, AND SELLIE E. HARRISON AND MAY HARRISON, RESPONDENTS NO. 99-0793 SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS 70 S.W.3d 778; 2001 Tex. LEXIS 132; 45 Tex. Sup. J. 232 April 5, 2000, Argued December 20, 2001, Delivered SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: [**1] As Amended January 2, 2002. PRIOR HISTORY: ON PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS. Lee Lewis Constr. v. Harrison, 1999 Tex. App. LEXIS 5040 (Tex. App. Amarillo July 8, 1999) DISPOSITION: Affirmed. CASE SUMMARY PROCEDURAL POSTURE: The Court of Appeals for the Seventh District of Texas affirmed the trial court's judgment awarding appellee family compensatory and punitive damages in their wrongful death and survival action against appellant contractor, alleging negligence and gross negligence. The contractor appealed. OVERVIEW: The contractor challenged the legal sufficiency of the jury's negligence and gross negligence findings, and in the alternative, the propriety of the submitted jury question concerning whether the contractor owed a duty to the decedent. Evidence at trial supported the family's contention that the contractor observed and expressly approved of decedent's employer using faulty fall-protection equipment. The evidence constituted more than a scintilla of evidence that the contractor retained the right to control fall-protection systems on the jobsite. The contractor's failure to require its subcontractors' employees to use independent lifelines was a cause-in-fact of the decedent's death, and that the contractor knew or should have known that workers using an ineffective fall-protection system could suffer a fatal fall. Testimony demonstrated that the contractor foresaw the general character of injury that the decedent sustained. Evidence also showed that the contractor's workers used independent lifelines as part of their fall- protection equipment. Any error in submitting the first question to the jury was harmless because of the jury's affirmative answer to the second question. OUTCOME: The judgment was affirmed. CORE CONCEPTS Torts > Negligence > Negligence Generally To sustain a negligence action, the plaintiff must produce evidence of a legal duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff, a breach of that duty, and damages proximately caused by that breach. Civil Procedure > Appeals > Standards of Review > Substantial Evidence Rule In conducting a legal-sufficiency review, the appellate court reviews the evidence in a light that tends to support the finding of the disputed facts and disregard all evidence and inferences to the contrary. If more than a scintilla of evidence exists, it is legally sufficient. More than a scintilla of evidence exists if the evidence furnishes some reasonable basis for differing conclusions by reasonable minds about a vital fact's existence. Torts > Vicarious Liability > Independent Contractors
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 09/30/2011 for the course EMGT 5130 taught by Professor Jeong during the Fall '11 term at UH Clear Lake.

Page1 / 18

LEELEW~1 - Page 1 70 S.W.3d 778, *; 2001 Tex. LEXIS 132, *;...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online