Castleberry v. Goolsby Building Corp.
1981 Tex. LEXIS 328, 24 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 367, 617 S.W.2d 665 (1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Workers' Compensation Act does not bar a deceased employee's common law cause of action for intentional injuries which survive to the estate, but mere allegations of 'willful negligence' or 'willful gross negligence' are insufficient to plead the requisite intentional injury.
Facts:
- Richard Ernest Castleberry was employed by Goolsby Building Corporation.
- On June 5, 1978, Richard Ernest Castleberry was killed in an industrial accident while in the course of his employment.
- Clarence E. Castleberry, Individually as surviving natural parent and as Administrator of the Estate of Richard Ernest Castleberry, Deceased, alleged Richard's death was caused by Goolsby Building Corporation's 'gross, wanton, and willful negligence,' 'grossly negligent acts,' and 'ordinary or gross negligence.'
Procedural Posture:
- Clarence E. Castleberry, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Richard Ernest Castleberry, Deceased, sued Goolsby Building Corporation (and the City of Corpus Christi) in trial court for actual and exemplary damages.
- Goolsby Building Corporation filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the Administrator failed to state a cause of action.
- The trial court rendered summary judgment that the Administrator take nothing against Goolsby Building Corporation.
- The cause of action against Goolsby Building Corporation was severed from the cause of action against the City of Corpus Christi, and a final judgment was rendered in favor of Goolsby Building Corporation.
- Clarence E. Castleberry, as Administrator, appealed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of Goolsby Building Corporation to the Court of Civil Appeals.
- The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Workers' Compensation Act bar a deceased employee's cause of action for intentional injuries which survive to the estate, and are allegations of 'willful negligence' or 'willful gross negligence' sufficient to plead such an intentional injury to avoid the Act's bar?
Opinions:
Majority - Campbell, Justice
No, the Workers' Compensation Act does not bar a deceased's cause of action for intentional injuries which survive to the estate; however, no, the Administrator's pleadings were not sufficient to allege an 'intentional injury.' Article 5525, the Texas Survival Statute, provides for the survival of common law actions for damages which could have been instituted by the deceased for injuries resulting in death. While the Workers' Compensation Act generally exempts employers from common law liability based on negligence or gross negligence, it does not exempt employers from common law liability for intentional injuries. This right for intentional injuries is guaranteed to the employee by the Texas Constitution (Art. I, § 13) and cannot be removed by the Legislature. Therefore, the Workers' Compensation Act does not bar such a cause of action. However, under Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 45 and 47, pleadings must give the opposing attorney fair notice of the claim involved. The Administrator's allegations of 'willful negligence' or 'willful gross negligence' are based upon negligence, not an intentional injury, and are therefore insufficient to give fair notice that the cause of action was for an 'intentional injury' necessary to avoid the effect of the Workers' Compensation Act.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the narrow but constitutionally protected exception to the Workers' Compensation Act's exclusive remedy provision for intentional employer misconduct. It establishes that while the Act does not shield employers from liability for true intentional injuries, pleading such claims requires more than allegations of aggravated forms of negligence. The distinction between 'willful negligence' and 'intentional injury' is crucial, requiring plaintiffs to specifically plead intent to cause harm. This ruling sets a high procedural bar for plaintiffs seeking to bypass workers' compensation, reinforcing that the statutory scheme remains the primary remedy for workplace injuries not intentionally caused by the employer.
