X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Donald Tompkins sued U.S. Silica Co., alleging that he contracted silicosis from using its flint products in abrasive blasting. After a mistrial, Tompkins died of emphysema, and his beneficiaries took over the prosecution of wrongful death and survival actions. Following a second trial, the trial court rendered judgment on a verdict for the plaintiffs, and the court of appeals affirmed. HOLDING:Reversed and remanded. U.S. Silica argues that it had no duty to warn Tompkins or his employers of the dangers associated with using flint in abrasive blasting. The court recently addressed these same arguments in Humble Sand & Gravel Inc. v. Gomez, 146 S.W.3d 170 (Tex. 2004). In Humble Sand, the court held that whether a flint supplier owed a duty to warn its customers’ employees of the dangers of using its product in abrasive blasting depended on whether such warnings could effectively reach the employees, and the court remanded the case to the trial court for a determination of that issue. For the same reasons explained at length in Humble Sand, the court remands this case to the trial court to determine the duty issue in accordance with Humble Sand,. In addition, the trial court should consider whether and how the analysis is affected by the fact that Tompkins began abrasive blasting work in the late 1960s, several years earlier than the employee in Humble Sand. U.S. Silica also argues that there is no evidence that Tompkins ever had any significant exposure to its products, or that Tompkins would have heeded an adequate warning had one been given. While the evidence on both counts is slight, the court concludes that there was some evidence to support a verdict. Finally, U.S. Silica argues that the trial court erred in excluding evidence regarding Tompkins’ CT scan performed shortly before the first trial and later lost. The court of appeals held that exclusion of the evidence was error but harmless. The court agrees that exclusion was error. OPINION:Per curiam. Green, J., did not participate.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.