 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Garcia v. Allen6/8/2000
Opinion by Justice Dorsey
Roel Garcia was hired to work as an analyzer technician by Hoechst Celanese Corporation in 1991. When he was hired, he was without a kneecap in his left knee. It had been removed as a result of a previous job -related injury he sustained in 1986 while working for a different employer. Hoechst Celanese knew at the time it hired Garcia that he did not have the kneecap.
In 1997, Garcia had another surgery on his knee. His doctor placed him on permanent restrictions that prohibited him from climbing, squatting, kneeling and crawling. Celanese terminated him after that surgery. Garcia contends that he was terminated not because of his diminished ability to perform the essential functions of his job , but rather, he was terminated as a part of a vendetta propagated against him by his two supervisors. After his termination, Garcia brought suit against the corporation and the two supervisors (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Celanese") for disability discrimination, negligence, fraud, defamation, and workers' compensation retaliation.
The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Celanese on all causes of action. Garcia moved for new trial, in part on the basis of newly discovered evidence. The trial court denied his motion for new trial, and Garcia timely perfected this appeal. He brings five points of error, challenging the trial court's grant of summary judgment on the negligence, defamation, discrimination and retaliation causes of action, and for its denial of his motion for new trial.
I. Negligence
First, Garcia argues the trial court erred in granting summary judgment against him on his common law negligence cause of action. We disagree.
Garcia contends that he was injured by Celanese as a result of the negligent conduct of its supervisors in "dishonestly reporting Garcia's job performance." The gist of his cause of action is that although he was able to adequately perform his job functions despite his knee injury , his supervisors falsely reported that he was unable to perform them. He contends that the corporation was thereby negligent in its supervision and hiring of its employees. He argues that Celanese owes a duty to its employees to hire and retain supervisors who will not cause harm or injury to its other employees. Also, he argues that the two supervisors owed him a duty to truthfully report his job performance and capability when the corporation requested them to make a report. Finally, he contends that the corporation had a duty to adequately investigate the supervisor's reports regarding his job performance or capability.
We hold that the trial court was correct in granting summary judgment against Garcia on his common law negligence cause of action because Celanese did not owe to Garcia the duties he alleges. The existence of a duty is an essential element of a negligence cause of action. See Centeq Realty, Inc. v. Siegler, 899 S.W.2d 195, 197 (Tex. 1995). Thus, the mere failure to exercise reasonable care does not ipso facto give rise to a cause of action for negligence. Cf. Praesel v. Johnson, 967 S.W.2d 391, 394 (Tex. 1998) (noting that the elements of a negligence cause of action are (1) a legal duty; (2) breach of that duty; and (3) damages proximately resulting from the breach). The nonexistence of a duty ends the inquiry into whether negligence liability may be imposed. Van Horn v. Chambers, 970 S.W.2d 542, 544 (Tex. 1998). The existence of a duty is a threshold question of law. Id.; St. John v. Pope, 901 S.W.2d 420, 424 (Tex.1995); Bird v. W.C.W., 868 S.W.2d 767, 769 (Tex.1994).
A. Duty to Investigate Claims Regarding an At-Will Employee Prio
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Texas Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|