 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Noble v. Pan Am Distributing2/21/2002
Anthony Noble sued his former employer, Pan Am Distributing, Inc. (Pan Am), asserting claims of breach of contract to pay medical expenses for injuries sustained on the job and negligence by creating an unsafe work environment. After a jury trial, the trial court directed a verdict in Pan Am's favor on the breach of contract claim, and the jury found in Pan Am's favor on the negligence claim. Noble challenges these decisions in two issues. Because there is some evidence of a contract and Pan Am's breach of it, we resolve Noble's first issue in his favor and reverse the trial court's judgment and remand the breach of contract claim for new trial. Because Noble did not carry his burden to show that the jury's answer to the negligence question is against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence, we resolve the second issue against Noble and affirm the trial court's judgment on the negligence claim.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In June 1993, Noble was hired by Pan Am as a truck driver, delivering bundles of shingles. When he was hired, he signed a "Notice to New Employees" stating that Pan Am did not have workers' compensation insurance coverage "to protect you from damages because of work-related illness or injury." Noble was injured on the job in August 1993. Pan Am referred him to a doctor and paid his medical bills from August until October. Pan Am terminated Noble in November for failure to take a random drug test. Pan Am received medical bills for Noble after he was terminated but did not pay them.
At trial, Pan Am requested a directed verdict on the claim for breach of contract for the payment of medical expenses on grounds that there was no meeting of the minds, no mutuality, and no consideration. Further, the jury answered "no" on both negligence and proximate cause elements of the question "Was the negligence, if any, of the Defendant a proximate cause of damage, if any, to the Plaintiff on August 17, 1993?" The trial court signed a take nothing judgment in favor of Pan Am. Noble appealed.
BREACH OF CONTRACT
In his first issue, Noble contends the trial court erred in directing a verdict on his breach of contract claim because he established the existence of a contract and breach. Noble argues that he and Pan Am had an implied contract that Pan Am would pay his medical expenses for the on-the-job injury he sustained and that Pan Am breached the contract by refusing to pay his bills after he was terminated. Pan Am contends its policy to pay employees' medical expenses did not extend beyond termination of employment.
Standard of Review and Applicable Law
In reviewing the granting of a directed verdict, we must determine whether there is any evidence of probative force to raise a fact issue on the material questions presented. Szczepanik v. First S. Trust Co., 883 S.W.2d 648, 649 (Tex. 1994) (per curiam). We consider all the evidence in a light most favorable to the party against whom the verdict was directed and disregard all contrary evidence and inferences; we give the losing party the benefit of all reasonable inferences created by the evidence. Id. If there is any conflicting evidence of probative value on a theory of recovery, a directed verdict is improper, and the case must be reversed and remanded for jury determination of that issue. Id.
"A binding contract must have an offer and an acceptance, and the offer must be accepted in strict compliance with its terms." Smith v. Renz, 840 S.W.2d 702, 704 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 1992, writ denied). The parties must have a meeting of the minds and must communicate consent to the terms of the agreement. Id. "Consideration is a fundamental element o
Page 1 2 3 4 Texas Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|