Henry Sanchez D/B/A H Sanchez Construction v. Alberraman L. Castillo

Citation: Not availableDocket: 05-18-01033-CV

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; March 3, 2020; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of Texas reversed and remanded the trial court's judgment in the case of Henry Sanchez d/b/a H Sanchez Construction v. Alberraman L. Castillo. The appeal arose from a jury verdict that found appellee Castillo was an employee of appellant Sanchez at the time of Castillo's injury while working on a construction site. Sanchez challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the jury's finding of employment, the admission of a contract into evidence, and the denial of his motion to designate a responsible third party.

The court noted that Sanchez's appeal focused on the jury's answer to whether Castillo was acting as his employee during the incident. The jury answered affirmatively, leading to additional questions that were not answered. The court determined that it could not address the legal sufficiency of the evidence first, as it did not know what judgment the trial court should have rendered if the evidence was found insufficient. Consequently, the court could not ascertain how the jury would have responded to unanswered questions had it decided differently regarding Castillo's employment status.

The appellate decision emphasizes the need for clarity in jury instructions and the potential implications of their responses in determining liability and damages in negligence cases. The case is remanded for a new trial to resolve these issues.

The court declined to address the merits of the appellant’s first issue, citing that the outcome of the third issue determines the appeal's disposition. In the third issue, the appellant contends that the trial court improperly denied his motion to designate Antonio as a responsible third party. Under Texas law, a responsible third party is anyone alleged to have contributed to the harm for which damages are sought, which may include negligent acts or violations of legal standards. The Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code allows defendants to designate such parties, enabling them to introduce evidence of a responsible third party’s fault and allowing a jury to apportion responsibility, even if the third party is not part of the lawsuit. Plaintiffs can counter this by joining the designated party as an additional defendant, ensuring all potentially liable parties are present in court. The statute mandates that the trier of fact assesses the percentage of responsibility for each party involved, which could potentially reduce the defendant's liability. A motion to designate a responsible third party must be filed at least 60 days before the trial unless good cause is shown for a later filing. Furthermore, a defendant cannot designate a responsible third party after the statute of limitations has expired unless they have complied with disclosure obligations. In this case, the appellee filed suit against the appellant and First Texas Homes on June 29, 2015, alleging injury while employed by Antonio, who managed construction projects for the appellant. The appellee claimed that the defendants provided a saw that posed an unreasonable risk of harm. Appellant's responses to interrogatories indicated that Antonio was involved in the construction and provided tools used by the appellee.

On September 23, 2016, the appellant identified Antonio as a potential responsible third party in response to the appellee's disclosure requests, providing a phone number but indicating his address was unknown. Subsequently, on October 2, 2015, the appellee included Antonio as a defendant in his first amended petition, alleging that both the appellant and Antonio had a duty to ensure safe working conditions for the plaintiff, which they breached, causing the plaintiff's injuries. However, the appellee never served Antonio with legal notice.

On May 2, 2017, the appellant sought permission to designate Antonio as a responsible third party, but the appellee objected, claiming the motion was untimely, filed just six days before trial. Although the motion was scheduled for a hearing, the trial court did not rule on it before the trial was reset. Antonio was later served with a deposition subpoena at an address on Cortez Drive in Dallas, with the deposition conducted on October 27, 2016. Additional subpoenas were issued to Antonio in May 2017, which were also delivered.

On November 30, 2017, the appellee listed Antonio as a potential witness for the trial, and another subpoena was issued shortly thereafter. During trial preparations on May 14, 2018, the appellant moved again to designate Antonio as a responsible third party, arguing prior disclosures and the appellee’s amended petition had put the appellee on notice about Antonio's involvement. The appellee countered that the lack of service was due to not knowing Antonio's address before the statute of limitations expired. The trial court denied the appellant’s motion, and the case proceeded to trial. 

On appeal, the appellant contends the trial court erred in denying the motion, asserting timely disclosure and notice were provided, while the appellee maintains the ruling was justified due to the failure to serve Antonio before the limitations period expired. Under Chapter 33 of the civil practice and remedies code, there are specific time limitations for designating responsible third parties, particularly noting that designations within 60 days of trial require good cause and that failure to disclose earlier may also preclude designation if the limitations period has lapsed.

Timing limitations established by the Legislature aim to balance a defendant's ability to identify potentially culpable nonparties with a plaintiff's time constraints in pursuing claims against existing parties. The first limitation examined involves whether the trial court abused its discretion by not acknowledging good cause for appellant's late designation of Antonio as a responsible third party, made less than 60 days before trial. Antonio was a named defendant for two and a half years prior to trial. Texas law allows a defendant to designate someone as a responsible third party, even if that person has not been sued by the claimant. The statute defines a responsible third party as someone not currently a party to the litigation but who may share liability for an injury. The court clarified that since Antonio was a defendant until the trial commenced, appellant was not obligated to designate him as a responsible third party until he was no longer a defendant. The trial court's ruling that appellant lacked good cause for the late designation was deemed erroneous.

The second limitation pertains to a defendant's obligation to designate a responsible third party if they had previously failed to disclose that person and the statute of limitations on the plaintiff’s claim against them has expired. The record indicates that appellant timely disclosed Antonio as a potential responsible third party, providing his contact information shortly after being sued and stating he could be designated as such in subsequent disclosures. Under Texas Rule 194.2, defendants must disclose relevant information about potential responsible third parties upon request from the plaintiff.

Responses to written discovery must be thorough based on all reasonably available information at the time. Parties are obligated to amend or supplement their responses unless the new or corrected information has been disclosed to other parties in writing, during depositions, or through other discovery responses. Appellant did not provide Antonio’s address in his September 23, 2016, responses, but there is no evidence he was aware of it then. However, he later disclosed Antonio’s address via subpoenas. Appellee’s counsel had the chance to obtain this information during Antonio’s deposition. Consequently, the appellant met his obligation to timely reveal Antonio as a responsible third party, and the appellee was aware of Antonio's potential contribution to the alleged damages.

Appellee's argument that the appellant's live pleading lacked sufficient facts to inform him of Antonio’s liability is unfounded. The original petition stated that Antonio hired the appellant and owed a duty to ensure safe working conditions, which was allegedly breached. The appellant subsequently amended his petition to include Antonio as a defendant, citing negligence. Given these allegations, it is implausible to claim that the appellant was unaware of Antonio's potential responsibility.

The trial court abused its discretion by denying the appellant's motion to designate Antonio as a responsible third party, an error that may have skewed the proceedings and affected the outcome of the litigation. The right to have the fact finder assess the proportionate responsibility of all parties is significant. Therefore, the judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the case is remanded for a new trial. Appellant Henry Sanchez is ordered to recover his appeal costs from appellee Alberraman L. Castillo.