 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Oasis Oil Corporation v. Koch Refining Company8/23/2001
p. Sch. Dist., 858 S.W.2d 337, 341 (Tex. 1993) (motion for summary judgment must expressly present grounds for judgment), none of CP&P;s traditional bases for summary judgment suffice to support the summary judgment.
CP&P;premised its traditional motion for summary judgment on three separate grounds: (1) it was not liable because it was not a manufacturer and did not own the product it processed for Whytecliff; (2) it owed no duty to Koch because it was not foreseeable that a product CP&P;manufactured would be sold to Koch; and (3) Oasis committed a criminal act which superceded any responsibility CP&P;had for the product it manufactured.
In terms of the first ground, under product liability law, liability attaches to a "processor" of products, and not merely manufacturers, and the statute does not require ownership of the relevant goods. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 82.001(4) (Vernon 1997).
The second ground fails for reasons discussed above in the no-evidence context, that is, foreseeability is not a requirement in an action for indemnification under the civil practice and remedies code. Meritor, 46 S.W.3d at 91; see Union Pump Co., 898 S.W.2d at 775.
The third ground raised by CP&P; a criminal intervening act committed by Oasis, falls within the exception to the manufacturer's duty to indemnify the seller. See TEX. Civ. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 82.002(a) (Vernon 1997) (manufacturer shall indemnify seller except for any loss "caused by the seller's negligence, intentional misconduct, or other act or omission, such as negligently modifying or altering the product, for which the seller is independently liable"). Specifically, CP&P;alleges that Oasis committed a criminal act by putting naphtha rather than crude oil into Koch's pipelines. In reviewing the summary judgment evidence, we must indulge every reasonable inference in favor of Oasis, and resolve any doubts in its favor. Nixon, 690 S.W.2d at 548-49. Applying this standard to the evidence at hand, we conclude that CP&P;has failed to conclusively establish that Koch's loss was caused by Oasis's alleged criminal act.
Accordingly, we reverse the summary judgment in favor of CP&P;and remand the cause for further proceedings.
Publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.3(b).
Opinion delivered and filed this 23rd day of August, 2001.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Texas Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|