Salinas v. Meaux Surface Protection, Inc., 11-0096 (Tex. App. 1st Dist. 2012)

On September 23, 2006, Plaintiff Orlando Salinas was a passenger in his supervisor Octave Samuel’s vehicle.  Both Plaintiff and Samuel were employed by Defendant Meaux Surface Protection, Inc.  The two were involved in a one-vehicle accident as the result of Samuel drinking while operating the vehicle.  Plaintiff claims he was told to ride with Samuel from the worksite to his home.  Defendant claims Plaintiff should have taken company provided transportation and thus, was not within the course and scope of his employment.

In August of 2007, Plaintiff filed a claim for compensation with the Department of Labor under the Longshore Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA).  The Department of Labor denied the claim, stating that the motor vehicle accident had no maritime nexus sufficient to involve the LHWCA.

Plaintiff then initiated suit against both the driver and Meaux alleging negligence and negligence per se.  Plaintiff claimed the driver, Samuel, was acting in course and scope of employment and therefore, Meaux was liable.  Plaintiff claimed that equitable estoppels barred Meaux from asserting that workers’ compensation was the sole remedy available.  Meaux filed both no-evidence and traditional motions for summary judgment.  The no-evidence motion claimed there was no evidence that Plaintiff and driver were in scope of employment.  The traditional motion argued that even if Plaintiff and driver were within the scope of employment, that workers’ compensation was the sole remedy available to Plaintiff.    In response, Plaintiff argued estoppel and res judicata stating that Meaux claimed Plaintiff was outside of the course of employment in the workers’ compensation hearing and that Plaintiff could only seek a workers’ compensation remedy in the civil matter.  The trial court ruled in favor of Meaux, finding that workers’ compensation was the only remedy available to Plaintiff.

Author:  Blakely Molitor

The issue on appeal before the Chief Justice Sherry Radack was whether a defendant can take two different legal and factual positions in two different forums, thus leaving a plaintiff without legal remedy at law.

Plaintiff first argued that equitable estoppel barred Meaux’s conflicting positions.  The court listed the elements of equitable estoppels as follows: (1) false representation or concealment of material facts made with the intent that another party act on the false representation or silence; (2) the false representation or concealment of material facts was made by a party with knowledge of the facts; (3) the party to whom the representation was made or from whom facts were concealed was without knowledge or the means of knowledge of the real facts; and (4) detrimental reliance.  The Court of Appeals found  Meaux’s assumption of the truth of Plaintiff’s allegations for purposes of summary judgment was not inconsistent with its previous position; therefore,  Plaintiff failed to raise a factual issue sufficient to invoke equitable estoppels.

Second, Plaintiff asserted res judiciata applied.  Plaintiff argued res judicata barred Meaux from disputing jurisdiction at the Department of Labor hearing, while also taking the position that Plaintiff was not within course and scope of employment because claims had the same parties and factual scenario.  The court listed the elements of res judicata: (1) prior final judgment on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction; (2) same parties or those in privity with them; (3) second action based on the same claims as were raised or could have been raised in first action.  The court noted a party may not pursue a claim determined by the final judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction in a prior suit as a ground of recovery in a later suit against the same party.  Additionally the court noted that because Plaintiff argued that the issues were first decided in federal tribunal, the federal rules must apply.  The elements for a federal claim of res judiciata are: (1) parties are identical in both suits; (2) prior judgment is rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction; (3) final judgment on the merits; (4) same cause of action is involved in both cases.  Using these elements, the Court determined Plaintiff never brought forth a final judgment on the merits of any issue.

Accordingly, the trial court’s opinion was affirmed.