Rodriguez v. Naylor Indus., Inc. - 763 S.W.2d 411 (Tex. 1989)

Rule:

The question on appeal from a summary judgment is not whether the summary judgment evidence raises a fact issue on the essential elements of the claim, but whether the evidence establishes as a matter of law that there is no genuine issue of material fact. 

Facts:

Petitioner Mary Rodriguez sued Naylor Industries, her husband's employer, for loss of consortium resulting from personal injuries her husband, Juan, suffered following a tire blowout on a truck he was driving at work. Since her husband's injuries were compensable under the Texas Workers' Compensation Act, only claims involving intentional torts by Naylor are actionable by either Juan or Mary Rodriguez. The trial court rendered summary judgment in favor of defendant Naylor. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the evidence did not raise a question of fact on whether an intentional tort had been committed.

Issue:

Did the evidence raise question of fact regarding Naylor’s intent thereby rendering the summary judgment improper?

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The court reversed and remanded the case because the evidence raised a fact question regarding Naylor’s intent and Naylor failed to establish that it lacked the requisite intent as a matter of law. Rodriguez presented evidence that if the truck were driven in the condition described by her husband, his supervisor would be substantially certain that the blowout would occur and that it would cause the truck to go out of control. Further, her husband was instructed to either drive the truck in that condition or walk. Husband's statement that he did not know of any reason that Naylor would want to see him injured did not, standing alone, establish the non-existence of intent as a matter of law.