* Pursuant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47. 5, the court has determined that this

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except unde r the limited

circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4.

1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-40601

Summary Calendar

MORGAN WADE GUNN

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

MID-SOUTH HEALTH DEVELOPMENT, INC., d/b/a Reunion Plaza,

and MID-SOUTH HEALTH ENTERPRISES, INC.

Defendants-Appellants,

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of Texas

Civil Action No. 6:98-CV-83

March 8, 2000

Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Mid-South Health Enterprises, Inc. (“Mid-South”) appeals

the district court’s denial of its motion for judgment as a matter

of law, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to establish

that Mid-South was negligent. Having carefully reviewed the briefs

and record, this court finds that there was sufficient evidence to

support the district court’s denial of the motion. We, therefore,

affirm.

This court reviews the denial of a motion for judgment as

a matter of law de novo, applying the same standard as the district1 Although a company’s following the usual and customary practice may

intuitively speak to the breach element of negligence, the Appellant and Texas

case law discuss the following of an industry-wide practice in relation to the

foreseeability element. S ee J. Weingarten, Inc. v. Sandefer

, 490 S.W.2d 941, 946

(Tex. Civ. App.–Beaumont 1973, writ ref’d n.r.e.). For the purposes of this

opinion, we adopt the Appellant’s and the Texas courts’ characterization of the

issue.

2 court. Nero v. Indus. Molding Corp. , 167 F.3d 921, 925 (5th Cir.

1999). This court considers all the evidence and all reasonable

inferences “in the light most favorable to the party opposed to the

motion... If there is substantial evidence opposed to the motion

--

that is, evidence of such quality and weight that reasonable and

fair minded jurors in the exercise of impartial judgment might

reach different conclusions

-- then the motion should have been

denied.” Crosthwait Equip. Co., Inc. v. John Deere Co. , 992 F.2d

525, 528 (5th Cir. 1993).

Since Mid-South is a workers’ compensation nonsubscriber,

Gunn must show that Mid-South was negligent. S ears, Roebuck & Co.

v. Robinson

, 280 S.W.2d 238, 239 (Tex. 1955). In order to show

negligence, Gunn must produce evidence establishing a duty, a

breach of that duty, and damages proximately caused by the breach.

I .M. Werner v. Colwell

, 909 S.W.2d 866, 869 (Tex. 199 4). On

appeal, Mid-south challenges the sufficiency of the evidence only

with respect to the proximate cause element, which consists of

cause in fact and foreseeability. 1 S ee L eitch v. Hornsby

, 935

S.W.2d 114, 118 (Tex. 1996). In particular, Mid-South contends

that any risk of injury to Gunn was not foreseeable since (1) Mid-2 Mid-South also contends that the district court erred in admitting

evidence of damages in excess of Gunn’s disclose d damages of $4,095.04. The

record indicates that Mid-South objected only to the past medical expenses exceeding $4,095.04. This court reviews evidentiary decisions objected to at

trial for abuse of discretion, see United States v. Duncan

, 919 F.2d 981, 985

(5th Cir. 1990), and will reverse only if the error is harmful and implicates a substantial right of the complaining party. See Polanco v. City of Austin , 78

F.3d 968, 982 (5th Cir. 1996); Fed. R. Evid. 103. Since the contested past

medical bills were listed in Gunn’s exhibits and since Mid-South knew about these

bills prior to Dr. Calodney’s deposition, Mid-South has failed to show that the

evidentiary ruling implicated one of its substantial rights. Therefore, the

district cou rt did not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence. With

respect to the evidentiary decisions that were not objected to at trial, this

court finds that the district court did not plainly err in allowing evidence of

other damages. S ee Whitehead v. Food Max of Mississippi, Inc.

, 163 F.3d 265, 274

(5th Cir. 1998). As a result, we affirm the district court’s evidentiary rulings

as to damages.

3 South followed the usual and customary practice in the nursing home

industry, and (2) Gunn did not foresee the possibility of injury. 2

Contrary to Mid-South’s claim, though, conformity with

the usual and customary practices of an industry do es not, as a

matter of law, absolve a party from negligence: “[E]vidence as to

such [industry] customs is not controlling and must not be taken as

the legal standard of care and negligence, but is merely evidence

to be considered along with other circumstances in determining what

the ord inary reasonable man would do under the circumstances.”

Stanley v. Southern Pac. Co.

, 466 S.W.2d 548, 551 (Tex. 1971); see

also Brown v. Lundell , 344 S.W.2d 863, 867-69 (Tex. 1961); Leadon

v. Kimbrough Brothers Lumber Co.

, 484 S.W.2d 567, 569 (Tex. 1972).

Thus, the fact that Mid-South followed the usual and customary

practice of nursing homes does not, by itself, render Gunn’s injury

unforeseeable.

Foreseeability requires only that the general danger, not

the exact sequence of events that produced the harm, be

foreseeable. L ofton v. Texas Brine Corp.

, 777 S.W.2d 384, 3874

(Tex. 1996). Although proximate cause may not be established by

conjecture or guess, “[t]here need not, however, be direct and

positive proof, as the jury may infer proximate cause ‘from the

circumstances surrounding the event.’” M osley v. Excel Corp.

, 109

F.3d 1006, 1009 (5th Cir. 1997)(quoting B.M. & R. Interests v.

Snyder

, 453 S.W.2d 360, 363 (Tex. Civ. App. 1970). Gunn testified

that a nursing home where he was previously employed required two

people to work together when changing patients. Henry Wickes, an

expert in safety engineer ing and human factors engineering, also

t estified that the practices and controls used by Mid-South w ere

inappropriate for the type of work Gunn was performing when he was

injured. Such evidence is sufficient for reasonable minded jurors

to inf er that Gunn’s injury was foreseeable. As a result, MidSouth was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law in virtue of

its following an industry-wide practice.

Furthermore, since foreseeability is measured objectively

from the standpoint of the p erson responsible for the allegedly

negligent act, Baylor Medical Plaza Services v. Kidd , 834 S.W.2d

6 9, 74-75 (Tex. App.–Texarkana, writ denied), the fact that Gunn

may not have foreseen the risk of injury is not dispositive. Given

the testimony of Gunn and Wickes, a reasonable juror could infer

that a reasonable employer should have foreseen Gunn’s injury.

Thus, since the evidence is sufficient for a reasonable

juror to find that Gunn’s injury was foreseeable, Mid-South is not

entitled to judgment as a matter of law. S ee Crosthwait Equip.

Co. , 992 F.2d at 526. This court, therefore, affirms.5

AFFIRMED

.