Jefferson v. Delphi Automotive Systems LLC et al

Filing 92

ORDER ON ACCI'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT denying 60 Motion for Summary Judgment.(Signed by Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos) Parties notified.(mserpa, 2)

United States District Court
Southern District of Texas

ENTERED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
§
§
Plaintiff,
§
VS.
§
§
DELPHI AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS LLC, §
et al,
§
§
Defendants.
§

December 31, 2015
David J. Bradley, Clerk

CAPRICIA JEFFERSON,

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:14-CV-00320

ORDER ON ACCI’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Plaintiffs filed this wrongful death action alleging, in relevant part, that the tractortrailer single-vehicle rollover was caused by improper road construction. Defendant
Anderson Columbia Co., Inc. (ACCI) was the contractor for the Texas Department of
Transportation (TxDOT), performing the road construction pursuant to TxDOT
specifications. ACCI has filed its Motion for Summary Judgment (D.E. 60), claiming
immunity from suit under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 97.002. For the
reasons stated below, the Court DENIES ACCI’s motion (D.E. 60).
TxDOT immunity eliminates liability for personal injury and death if the
contractor, ACCI, was “in compliance with contract documents material to the condition
or defect that was the proximate cause” of the injury and death. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.
Code § 97.002. Plaintiffs claim that the fatal rollover was caused by, among other things,
(1) a sharp pavement drop-off, (2) a soft shoulder, and (3) inadequate warning signs
relating to the closing of the incomplete, dangerous shoulder and the construction zone
speed limit.
1/3

In response to the summary judgment motion, Plaintiffs have offered evidence to
raise a disputed issue of material fact on each of these claims.
• While the specifications provided limitations for the slope of the
pavement drop-off (i.e., D.E. 62, p. 14), workers and investigators
testified that it was a very sharp drop off and there is some evidence that
the slope exceeded the maximum permitted by the contract.
• While the specifications required that the shoulder be composed of
caliche, with some sand and dirt, and that it be compacted at the right
elevation, also involving “reshaping the subgrade” (i.e., D.E. 64, p. 11 et
seq.), photographs show, and a worker testified, that at the time of the
accident, the shoulder was composed only of loose sand or dirt.
• While the contract required specific signage relating to speed limits and
a warning about the road shoulder (i.e., D.E. 62, p. 16), the construction
supervisor admitted that four of those signs were missing or incorrect.
There is some indication that the TxDOT project engineer could and did vary the
contract requirements from the specifications, making ACCI’s work compliant with the
TxDOT contract. However, any testimony in the summary judgment record to the effect
that the engineer did approve changes of the specifications upon which Plaintiffs base
their claims is inadmissible hearsay.
The contractor immunity would still apply if the alleged noncompliance with the
contract was not a proximate cause of the injury or death. ACCI’s motion states the
requirement for demonstrating proximate cause, but does not expressly seek summary
2/3

judgment on that issue. Rather, ACCI maintains only that it was fully compliant with the
specifications. Because Plaintiffs have submitted some evidence to raise a disputed issue
of material fact on these issues, ACCI is not entitled to summary judgment.
For these reasons, the motion (D.E. 60) is DENIED.
ORDERED this 31st day of December, 2015.

___________________________________
NELVA GONZALES RAMOS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3/3