Cressman Tubular Products Corp. v. Kurt Wiseman Oil & Gas, Ltd.

Houston's 14th Court of Appeals concluded that the plaintiffs' express-warranty claim against appellant sounds in contract, but their implied-warranty claims against the cross-appellees sound in tort; thus, the trial court did not err in disregarding the proportionate-responsibility finding as to the express-warranty claim against one defendant and in refusing to disregard a similar finding as to the implied-warranty claims against two other defendants. The 14th Court further concluded that the trial court did not err in refusing to include alternative bases for its judgment. Houston's 14th Court of Appeals, No. 14-08-01039-CV, 09-24-2010

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Affirmed and Opinion filed September 23, 2010.

OPINION

This is a double appeal of a case in which multiple theories of liability were asserted against four defendants for damages caused by the sale of goods for use in an oil well. After the defendant found liable for 99% of the plaintiffs’ damages filed for bankruptcy protection, the trial court severed those claims from this case and entered judgment requiring all of the plaintiffs’ damages and attorney’s fees to be paid by the defendant that the jury found to be 1% responsible. On appeal, that defendant contends that all of the plaintiffs’ damages sound in tort, and thus, the trial court erred in disregarding a jury finding allocating responsibility for breach of an express warranty and in awarding attorney’s fees to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs argue that all of their damages sound in contract, and they contend that the trial court erred in failing to disregard the jury’s finding allocating responsibility for breach of implied warranties, failing to hold the defendants jointly and severally liable, and failing to include the jury’s breach-of-contract finding as an alternative basis for the judgment against one of the defendants. We conclude that the plaintiffs’ express-warranty claim against appellant sounds in contract, but their implied-warranty claims against the cross-appellees sound in tort; thus, the trial court did not err in disregarding the proportionate-responsibility finding as to the express warranty claim against one defendant and in refusing to disregard a similar finding as to the implied warranty claims against two other defendants. Finally, we further conclude that the trial court did not err in refusing to include alternative bases for its judgment, and we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Cressman Tubular Products Corp. v. Kurt Wiseman Oil & Gas, Ltd.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal