Juan Garcia v. Sunbelt Trading (Kansas), Inc.--Appeal from 334th District Court of Harris County

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-01-00435-CV
Juan GARCIA,
Appellant
v.
SUNBELT TRADING (KANSAS), INC.,
Appellee
From the 334th Judicial District Court, Harris County
Trial Court No. 99-38094
Honorable J. Dale Wainwright, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Paul W. Green, Justice

Sitting: Alma L. L pez, Chief Justice

Catherine Stone, Justice

Paul W. Green, Justice

Delivered and Filed: January 29, 2003

AFFIRMED

This appeal arises from a maritime personal injury case. Appellant Juan Garcia was injured while unloading cargo from a vessel pursuant to his employment as a longshoreman. He sued appellee Sunbelt Trading (Kansas), Inc. (Sunbelt) as owner and supplier of the cargo. The trial court rendered a summary judgment in favor of Sunbelt, which Garcia now appeals in a single issue. We affirm the trial court's order.

Background

On May 28, 1998, Juan Garcia was employed as a longshoreman on the vessel M/V HISTRIA PRIDE in the Houston Ship Channel. Garcia and his co-workers were unloading bundles of steel rods from the vessel's cargo hold. The bundles were being shipped from the manufacturer, Kaptan Demir Celik End.ve Ticaret (Kaptan), to the buyer, Sunbelt, pursuant to a "cost-insurance-freight (CIF) Houston" contract. The bundles were pre-packaged and fitted with lifting straps designed to be used when unloading. While being unloaded, the lifting strap on one of the bundles broke, causing the steel rods to fall onto Garcia. As a result of the incident, Garcia had part of his left foot amputated.

Garcia filed suit in Harris County, Texas against several companies, including Sunbelt. Garcia's claims against Sunbelt centered on two theories: negligence and strict liability. Sunbelt filed an Amended Motion for Summary Judgment on February 5, 2001. The trial court granted Sunbelt's motion, and Garcia appeals from the trial court's order.

Discussion

In reviewing a trial court's ruling on a summary judgment, we apply a de novo standard of review. Valores Corporativos, S.A. de C.V. v. McLane Co., Inc., 945 S.W.2d 160, 162 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1997, writ denied). We will uphold a summary judgment only if the record establishes that there is no genuine issue of material issue fact and that the movant is entitled to a summary judgment as a matter of law on a ground set forth in the motion. Nixon v. Mr. Prop. Mgmt. Co., Inc., 690 S.W.2d 546, 547-548 (Tex. 1985).

In his sole issue, Garcia complains the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Sunbelt. He asserts that Sunbelt, as owner and supplier of the steel rods, had an affirmative duty to either (1) exercise reasonable care to make the chattel safe or (2) exercise reasonable care to discover the rods' dangerous condition or character and to inform him of these dangers.

Negligence

Garcia contends Sunbelt, as owner of the steel rods, owed him a duty as a matter of law to exercise reasonable care to make the chattel safe. According to Garcia, Sunbelt was the owner of the steel rod bundles when they fell because title and risk of loss to the goods had passed to it under the terms of the "cost-insurance-freight" (CIF) contract. He maintains that, as owner of the cargo, Sunbelt is liable for all the damage and injuries caused by the steel rods. Sunbelt does not contest that it held title to the cargo at the time of the incident in which Garcia was injured.

Although there is little Texas law applicable to Garcia's contentions, the Aslanidis case out of the Second Circuit is directly on point. Aslanidis v. U.S. Lines, Inc., 7 F.3d 1067, 1076-77 (2nd Cir. 1993). The appellant in Aslanidis was a seaman, also injured in the scope of his employment. Aslanidis suffered an injury when phosphorous drums which were being carried as cargo on his vessel ignited due to improper packaging. Id. at 1070. He filed suit against several parties, including the consignee/ purchaser of the drums, contending they should be held liable under the theory of negligence. The court found no liability on the part of the buyer, stating that the purchaser had "no involvement with the packaging of the . . . drums, and it had no contract with the entities that stowed the goods." Id. at 1076-77. The court went on to say that imposing liability on the purchaser of the cargo would be unjustified and illogical. Id. at 1077.

The Aslanidis court also cites Di Gregorio v. N.V. Stoomvaart Maatschappij "Nederland," 411 F. Supp. 331, 335 (S.D.N.Y. 1975) in its decision. In Di Gregorio, GTE Company had purchased several crates of antennas and mountings and contracted to have them shipped to another purchaser. While the crates were being loaded onto a vessel, one collapsed, injuring the longshoreman who was handling the cargo. The district court found the manufacturer/ packager of the antennas liable, but refused to find fault in GTE because "a buyer normally has no duty under the law to supervise the seller in the process of producing or packing the purchased goods." Id. at 335.

We find the reasoning used in both the Aslanidis case and the Di Gregorio case to be persuasive. Even though Sunbelt held title to the steel rod bundles at the time of the incident, no act or omission of the company could be found to have been negligent. Sunbelt was not involved in the manufacturing of the steel rods or the lifting straps or in the packaging of the bundles, nor was Sunbelt involved in the loading and transportation of the bundles. Because Sunbelt exercised no control over the steel, it owed no duty to Garcia. We overrule Garcia's issue and affirm the judgment of the trial court as to the negligence claims against Sunbelt.

Strict Liability

Garcia also contends, under a theory of strict liability, that Sunbelt owed him a duty to discover any dangerous condition inherent in the cargo and to inform him of such dangers. Sunbelt admits its status as an intermediate distributor of the steel rods subjects it to potential liability under strict products liability.

In Texas, strict liability law is governed by section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts. See Restatement (Second) of Torts 402A; Firestone Steel Prods. Co. v. Barajas, 927 S.W.2d 608, 613 (Tex. 1996). The applicable law requires Garcia to prove (1) the defendant sold or manufactured the product; (2) the product was unreasonably dangerous or was in a defective condition when it left defendant's control; and (3) the defect resulted in injury to the plaintiff. Restatement (Second) of Torts 402A (1965); Houston Lighting & Power Co. v. Reynolds, 765 S.W.2d 784, 785 (Tex. 1988); Hancock v. City of San Antonio, 800 S.W.2d 881, 890 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1990, pet. denied). Garcia offered no evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding the first two prongs of the strict liability test. He failed to show Sunbelt manufactured or sold the steel rods or the packaging. He also failed to demonstrate the product was unreasonably dangerous or in a defective condition or even that Sunbelt ever had control of the product. As such, we cannot find Sunbelt liable under a strict products liability theory. We overrule Garcia's issue and affirm the judgment of the trial court as to the theory of strict liability.

Conclusion

Because Garcia failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to Sunbelt's liability, we overrule his sole issue and affirm the summary judgment in favor of Sunbelt.

Paul W. Green, Justice

Publish