### NUM BER 13-08- 0054 1-CV 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS C O R P U S C H R IS T I - 

## EDI NBURG

M A TILDE M UNOZ RODRIGUEZ DE SA N C H EZ , V IC EN T E SA N C H EZ , A ND PA UL IN SA NC HEZ , A pp ellan ts,
v. SPOR RA N EE, IN C. D/B /A EL EXP RES O B US CO., A pp ellee.
On a p p ea l f ro m th e 32 9t h D is tr ic t C o u rt of W ha rton C ou nty , T exas . 

## ME MOR A ND UM OP IN ION B efo re J u st ic es Y añ ez , B en av id es , a n d V el a M emo rand um Opin ion b y Ju stice B en av ide s App ellant s, Matilde Muno zRodriguezd e S a n c hez, Vicente Sanch ez, and Pa ulin Sanc hez( col lecti v ely

"the Sanc hez es") , app eal from t he tr ial co urt' s jud gm e n t t hat t hey t a k e n o t h in g o n t h e ir wro n gf u l d e a t h c la im s b a s e d o n t h e d e a t h o f A g r a c i a n o S a n c h e z. The jur y found that appel lee , Spor ra n EE, Inc

. d/b/a El Ex preso Bus Co. ("E x preso") , w as neg li g ent, but i t al so f o u nd th at A g ra ci ano w as neg li g ent. The j ur y appor ti oned t heExpr eso does not chal l enge t he Sanch ez es' st at em ent of f act s. T her ef or e, we acce pt t hem as t r ue. 1 See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 3 8 .1 (g ) ("In a c i v i l c a s e , t h e c o u rt w i l l a c c e p t a s tru e th e fa c ts s ta te d u n l e s s a n o th e r p a rty co nt r ad i ct s t he m
. " )

. Because t hi s i s a m em or an du m o pi ni on a nd t he p ar t i es a r e f am i l i arwi t h t he f ac t s, we w i l l o n l y d i s c u s s th e fa c ts i n s o fa r a s th e y re l a te to th e u l ti m a te d i s p o s i ti o n o f th i s a p p e a l

. See i d. at R

. 47. 1. 2 neg li g ence and assi g ned 40% to Ex preso and 60% to Agraci ano. The tr ial co urt, therefore,
re ndered a tak e- nothi ng j udg ment i n Ex preso’ s fav or
. The Sanc hez es appeal , arg uin g by tw o is sues that (1 ) the tr ial cour t er ro neous ly re fused thei r ins tr uct ion on a co m m on
car ri er 's duty

of care; an d ( 2) the tr ial co urt er ro neous ly refused th eir

i n str uct ion on
ne g l i g en t un de rta k i ng
. W e affi r m. I. B A CKGRO UND 1 The Sanc hez es are the w ife and chi ldren of Ag ra ci ano. O n J a n u ar y 10, 2004, Agraciano b oard ed a n Expreso bus in Rose nbe rg , Te x as, hea ded for B row nsvil le, T exas. Agraciano was sev ent y -one y ears old a nd sp oke Sp anish . Th e bu s drive r, Hil ario Me ndoz a, no ti ced that Ag ra ci ano app eared to be i ntox ic ated at t he ti me he bo a rd ed th e bus, y et he al low ed hi m to d o s o any w ay
. Sho rtly a f ter dep arting Rose nbe rg , Mend oza ca lled Expreso's d ispatch er to repo rt that Ag ra ci ano w as dr unk and causi ng a dis tur bance w it h another pas seng er
. Acc ordin g to t h e E xp re so training ma terials, the driv ers w ere tau ght to isolate problem passe ngers and t o inv olv e the leg al author it ies

. The Ex preso handbook sta tes that a l aw enforc ement
re s p o n s e is a lwa ys re qu ir e d wh e n a p a s s e n ge r- o n -p a s s e n ge r a t t a c ko c c u rs
. Me n d o za ask ed the dispat cher

to cal l the loc al pol ic e in the nex t city , El Campo, to re por t Ag ra ci ano
as bei ng an i ntox ic ated pass eng er
. Ins tead, the dis patc her tol d M endoz a to cal l the p oli ce. Ne it h e r t h e d is p a t c h e r n o r M e n d o za , h o we ve r , p l a c e d a ca ll t o t h e p o li c e
. Me n d o za cl aimed he di d notw ant t o g et A g ra ci ano i nto t ro ubl e. At a pprox imat ely

9:55 p.m., Me ndoz a ex it ed the hig hw ay onto the feeder road atEl3

Campo, Tex as, w here he pass ed a motel and proceed ed some di sta nce to a cl osed bus stop . Mendo z a no ticed th at Agraciano 's speech w as slurred. Mend oza decide d to eje ct Agracian o f ro m t he b us an d told him th at he could no t cont inue trav eling on the bus. M en do z a te s ti fi ed t ha t Ag r ac i an o c ou l d no t c om mu nicate with h i m e x c ep t to rep ea t, "T o Brow nsv il le, to Brow nsv il le. " Me ndoz a told Ag ra ci ano t o c all so meone to pi ck hi m up, then he l eft Ag ra ci ano bes ide the cl osed bus sto p, w hic h w as next door to a conv eni ence sto re
. Me ndoz a di d notse e i f Ag ra ci ano ent ered th e c onv eni ence sto re
. Mend oza testif ied th at a close d bu s stop was not a safe place to lea v e a pa ssenger, and he stat ed th at he w oul d n o th ave lef t Agraciano atthe con v enie nce sto re if it w ere closed . Mendo z a, ho w ever, failed to check the poste d store h ours to se e w het her the store
w as cl osi ng
. Ag ra ci ano ent er ed th e c onv eni ence sto re n ext t o the cl osed bus sto p, bu t no one there c oul d s peak Spani sh, and Ag ra ci ano di d notsp eak Eng li sh. The store c ler k n oti ced that Ag ra ci ano' s w alk w as unst eady , hi s s peech w as sl ur re d, an d tha t he had t he s trong smel l of alc ohol

. The st ore c los ed ati ts re g ula r ti me of 10:00 p.m., about fiv e or ten minut es after Ag ra ci ano ent er ed th e s tore. The st ore empl oy ees, w ho w ere unabl e to
co m m u n ica te w it h Agra cia n o , p u t h im ou ts id e th e do o r an d le f t h im sit ti n g on hi s b a g. Later , Ag ra ci ano w alk ed ac ro ss the hig hw ay to the s houl der

of the E ast bound l ane of U.S . H ig hw ay

59, almos t di re ctl y

ac ro ss from t he s tore, w here he w as fatall y st ru ck by an aut omobil e. At a pprox imat ely 11:4 6 p.m. , an El C ampo pol ic e off ic er w as dis patc hed to th e scene of the fata lity . Th e con dition s at the time o f the accid entw ere foggy and dark, and t here w ere no street l ig hts in the area w here Ag ra ci ano' s b ody w as found. EM S w as cal led , and the medic al ex aminer repor ted t hat A g ra ci ano' s b loo d- alc ohol c o n te n t w as almos t t hr ee ti mes t he l eg al li mit.4

At the concl usi on of

tr ial , t he c our

t prepared i ts charg e to the j ur y and submi tted the charg e t o t h e a t t o r n e y s fo r t h e i r o bj e c t i o n s , w i t h t h e fo l l o w i n g a s Q u e s t i o n 1 , a s k ing
w het her Expreso or Agraciano were neglig ent , alon g w ith several instructions:

Did the ne gli gence, if any, of those nam ed b elow proximate ly cause the o cc ur re nce or

i nju ry i n q uest ion ? "Neg li g ence, " wh e n us ed w it h respect t o the co nductof EL EX PR ESO, means fail ure to use a hig h deg re e of care, t hat i s, faili ng to do that w hic h a v er

y caut iou s, compet ent, and pr udent person w oul d hav e done und er the sa me or similar circumsta nces or doin g tha t w hich a very cautio us, compet ent, and pr udent person w oul d nothav e done under the s a me or similar circumsta nces.

" Hi gh d e gr e e o f

ca re " m e a n s t h a td e gr e e o f ca re t h a two u ld h a ve been us ed by

a v eryca uti ous, co mpetent, and pr udent person under the sam e or similar circumsta nces. "Prox imat e c ause", w hen us ed w it h re spect t o the co nductof EL EX PR ESO, means thatca use w hic h, i n a n atural and cont inu ous seq uence , p ro d u c e s a n e ve n t , a n d wit h o u twh ic h ca u s e su c h e ve n two u ld n o th a ve occ ur re d. In order

to be a pro x imat e c ause, the actor omi ss ion co mplai ned o f m u s tb e su c h t h a ta p e rs o n u s in g a h ig h d e gr e e o f ca re wo u ld h a ve forese en th at th e event, or som e oth er similar ev ent , might reaso nab ly result therefrom. There maybe more tha n one prox imat e c ause of an ev ent. Y ou are i nst ru cte d tha t c ommon car ri ers a re under the duty

to discha rg e the ir passen gers i nto a reason ably safe place and w hen so dis charg ed th e rela ti onshi p i s t er minat ed. Ques ti on 1 als o i ncl uded i nst ru cti ons re g ardin g Ag ra ci ano' s n eg li g ence. .D ur ing the charg e c onferenc e, t he Sanc hez es re q uest ed that the tr ial cour t i ncl ude the fol low ing addi ti onal i nst ru cti on to the jur y defini ng “ hig h deg re e of care” : A bus com pan y , as a carrier of p assen gers, is und er a d uty to ex ercise such a hi g h deg re e of fores ig ht as to the poss ibl e dang ers and s uch a hi g h deg re e of prude nce in guarding a gainst the m as w ould b e used b y a v erycautio us, prud entand comp ete nt m an u nde r same or similar circum stan ces. Fu rt h e rm o re , t h e Sa n ch e zes r e que st e d t h e fo llo wing in st ru ct io n on ne glige n t u n d e rt a kin g: Y ou are i nst ru cte d tha t Sp or ra n EE, Inc

. d /b/a El Ex preso Bus Co. w as n e gl ig e n tif

(1 ) i tu n d e rt o o kt o p e rfo rm se rvi c e s t h a tit k n e w o r sh o u ld h a ve5

known were nece ssary for the d eced ent ’s protectio n, (2) Spo rran EE, In c. d/b/a El Ex pr eso Bus Co. f a iled to ex er ci se re asona ble ca re i n per forming thos e s er

v ic es, and eit her

( 3) Ag ra ci ano Sa nchezreli ed upon Spor ra n EE, Inc . d/ b/a E l Ex pr eso Bus Co. ’s per formance, or

( 4) Spor ra n EE, Inc . d/ b/a El E x pres o Bu s C o. ’ s p er for ma nc e i nc r ea s ed t he d ec ed en t’ s r i s ko f ha r m. The tr ial co urt refused bot h req uest s. The ju ry found thatboth Ex preso and Ag ra ci ano w ere neg li g ent. In Ques ti on 2, the jur y appor ti oned l iab il ity

betw een Ex preso and Ag ra cian o , ass ig nin g 40% of fault t o Ex pr eso and 60% of

fault to A g ra ci ano. Ques ti on 3, the firs t damag es q uest ion , c ontai ned
a c ondi ti onal i nst ru cti on atthe beg inn ing adv is ing the jur y to answ er the follo w ing q uest ion s if the jur y sa id that Ag ra ci ano w as not n eg li g ent or if it ass ig ned 50% or les s t o Ag ra ci ano. The ju ry di d notans w er

the damag es q uest ion s. The tr ial co urt rendered a tak e- nothi ng jud g ment i n fav or

of Ex preso. Thi s a ppeal ens ued.

II. C H A R GE E RROR By the ir first issue, the San chezes argue tha t the trial court erred by ref using their ins tr uct ion defini ng “ hig h degree of care. ” Bytheir

second is sue, the Sanc hez es arg ue th at the t ri al cour

t er re d by

refusing thei r neg li g ent u nder tak ing i nst ru cti on. W e di sag re e. A . St and ard o f Rev iewan d A pp licab le L aw W hen c ra fting the jur

y ch arg e, t he tr ial co urt mus t “ submit such i nst ru cti ons and def initions a s shall be prop er to en able the jury to rend er a v erdict.” T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 277. W e re v iew a tr ial cour t’ s re fusal to submi t an ins tr uct ion under an abuse of di sc re ti on sta ndard. S e e S h u

p e v . L i n g a f e lter, 1 9 2 S

. W .3d 577 , 579 (Tex. 2006 ) ( per curiam ). “W hen a tr ial cou rt refuses to s ubmita req uest ed i nst ru cti on on an i ss ue rais ed by the plea dings and ev iden ce, th e question on ap pea l is w het her the request w as reaso nab ly
nece ssaryto ena ble th e jury to rend er a prope r v erdict.” Id. Tri al cour

ts ar e af forded cons ide ra ble disc re ti on w hen s ubmit ti ng i nst ru cti ons, and6

altho ugh trial courts must ex plain any tech nical or legal term s to the jury , t h e y posse ss
w ide dis creti on to deter mine w hether suc h ex pla nati ons are s uff ic ien t. Lum ber m ans Mu t. Cas. Co. v. Garcia , 758 S.W .2d 8 93, 8 94 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 1988, w ri t den ied ); KMart Corp. v. Trottie , 677 S.W .2d 632 , 636 (Te x . App .–Hou ston [1st Di st.] 19 84, w rit ref ’d
n.r.e .). A trial court ab uses its discretio n if it fa ils to fo llow

g uiding rules and principles. Colum bia Rio Grand e Health care, L. P. v. Haw ley, 284 S.W .3d 8 51, 8 56 ( Tex . 200 9)

. W e w il l not rev erse a j ur y v erdic t for the t ri al cour t’ s refusal to s ubmitan i nst ru cti on unle ss the ref usal prob ably caused the ren dition of an imp rope r judgmen t or proba bly pr ev ented the c omplai nin g par ty from present ing the ca se o n a p peal

. Id .; Shupe , 192 S.W .3d a t 579

. Cha rg e error w il l g enerall y

be h ar mf ul if i t rela tes to a “ cont est ed, c ri ti cal issue.” Hawley , 284 S.W .3d at 856. How ev er , “w hen t he findi ng s o f the j ur y i n ans w er

to oth er issues are suf

f icient to supp ortt he jud gmen t,” error in ref using an instruct ion is har mles s. Boatl

and of Houston, Inc. v. Bai

ley, 609 S.W .2d 7 43, 7 50 ( Tex . 198 0) ; see a lso City of B ro wnsvi

lle v . Al var ado , 897 S.W .2d 7 50, 7 52 ( Tex . 199 5)

. B. Hi gh D egree o f Care By the ir first issue, th e San chezes argue tha t the trial court’s ref usal to subm it their defini ti on of “ hig h degree of ca re ” re sul ted i n an er ro neous j ur y ch arg e tha t di d notst ate the t ru e s tandard of care for a c ommon car ri er su ch as Ex preso
. T h e y rely on a Tex as Supreme C our

t opi nio n i ss ued i n 1880, Inte rnatio nal & Grea t Northern Railway Co. v. Hal lor en , in w hich th e cou rt def ined the du ty of a railroad com pan y

as follows: Railroad com pan ies, ho w ever, are not insu rers of the saf et y o f

their pa s s e n g e rs fu rt h e r t h a n c o u l d b e r e q u i r e d b y t h e e x e r c i s e o f s u c h a hig h degr ee of for esi ght a s t o p o ss ible dange rs, and s uch a hi g h deg re e of p ru d e n ce in guar

din g agai

nst them , as w ould be use d by v erycautio us, pr udent, and compet ent p ersons under si mil ar ci rc umstan ces
. 53 Tex . 46, 1880 W L 9281, at *4 (1 880) (e mphasi s added)

. The Sanc hez es arg ue th at,7

by omi tti ng the lan g uag e s tati ng thatEx preso had t o ex er ci se a “ hig h deg re e of fores ig ht
as to po ss ibl e dang ers, and s uch a hi g h deg re e of pr udenc e in g uardin g ag ain st them,” the t r i a l c o u rt ’ s i n s t r u c t i o n o n h i g h d e g r e e o f c a re i n c o m p l e t e l y

s t a t e d t h e s t a n d a rd o f

c a r e
. We dis ag re e. The in str uctio n s u b m it ted b y the tr ial co urt i n thi s c ase is the ins tr uct ion
re commended by

the Tex as Patt er n J ur y C harg e. See T EX
. P A TTERN J U R Y C H ARG E 2.2 (2 008)

. Rec entl y , i n Speed Boat Leasi ng, Inc. v. El

m er , 124 S.W .3d 210 , 212 (Tex. 2003 ), the Tex as Supreme C our t i mpli ci tl y

approv ed th e l ang uag e i n the Pat ter n J ur y C harg e and
ex press ly

st ated that the stand ard of care for a common car ri er is “ ‘t hat d eg re e of care tha t
w oul d be ex er ci sed b y a ve ryca uti ous and pr udent person under the same o r si mil ar ci rc umstan ces ,’ ” w hic h i s e x act ly how the tr ial co urt c harg ed th e j u ry in t h is cas e. Id. (qu o ti n g Dallas Ry. & Term in a l C o
. v. Travis , 7 8 S

. W

. 2 d 9 4 1 , 9 4 2 (1 9 3 5 ))

. T h u s , we di s a gr e e t h a t the language subm itted to the trial court is an incom plete or incorrect sta tement of t h e l a w, and the t ri al cour t di d notabus e i ts dis creti on i n refusing the addi ti onal l ang uag e. See i d. Mo re ov er , t he San chez es hav e f a iled to prov e tha t t he refusal to s ubmitthe addi ti o n a l l a n g u a g e p ro b a b l y c a u s e d t h e re n d i t i o n o f a n i mp ro p e r j u d g me n t

. The Sanc hez es arg ue th at w it hout the a ddi ti onal l ang uag e they propose d, the jur y had “n o w ay of knowi ng” that “high degree of care” mea ns “exerci sing fo resight as to possib le dan gers and s uch a hi g h deg re e of pr udenc e i n g uardin g ag ain st them.” Ag ain , w e di sag re e. The fail ur e to submi t an ins tr uct ion i s h ar mles s i f the s ubst ance of the req uest ed ins tr uct ion is inc lud ed else w here in the co urt’ s c harg e. See Boa tland of Hou ston , Inc. , 609 S.W .2d a t 750 ; see als o Al var ado , 897 S.W .2d a t 752 ; Mo . Pa c. R. R. C o. v . Lem on , 861 S.W .2d 5 01, 5 15 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 4th D is t.] 1993, w ri t di sm’ d)

. The lan g uag e tha t8

the Sa nc he z es r el y up on i s s ub s um ed w i th i n th e du ty i ns tr uc ti on ac tu al l y g i v en, w hich
re q uires the d eg re e of care tha t w oul d be ex er ci sed by a cauti ous, co mpetent, and pr udent person, and the p ro x im a te caus e defini ti on, w hic h i ncor porates the forese eabi li ty requireme nt: “In orde r to be a proximat e cau se, th e act or o mission comp lained of must be s uch that a person usi ng a hig h degree of ca re w oul d hav e fores een t hat t he ev ent, or
som e oth er sim ilar event, might reason ably result th eref rom. ” See Le m on , 861 S.W .2d a t 505 ( hol din g that the tri al cour t did not err

in refusi ng to submi t a sta tutor y st andard of care,
w hich th e cou rt held w as the same or substa ntially the same as the sta nda rd of ordinary care). Th is language instructe d the jury thatEx pres o w ould be liable for dan gers that it coul d fores ee butfail ed to g uard ag ain st, to the e xtent a c auti ous, co mpetent, and pr udent p e rs o n wo u ld h a ve d o n e so , ju s ta s re qu e s t e d i n t h e r e f u s e d in s t ru c t io n
. Ac c o rd in gl y, we
ov er ru le the S anche z es’ first is sue. C. Negligent Undertaki ng By thei r sec ond i ss ue, the Sanchez es arg ue th at t he tr ial co urt er re d by refusing to instruct th e jury

on the ir negli gent un derta king theory. Expreso argues tha t the trial court did not abuse i ts dis creti on i n refusing the ins tr uct ion bec ause a negl ig ent u nder tak ing theor y i s n ot ap propr iat e w hen a par ti cul ar duty

or co ntract ual obl ig ati on al re ady ex is ts and li abi li ty ca n be g ov er ned w it hin thatst andard. W e ag re e. A c lai m for neg li g ent u nder tak ing i s d efined as foll ow s: One w ho unde rt akes , g ra tui tous ly or for consi derati on, to render se rv ic es to an o t h e r w h i c h h e s h o u l d re c o g n i z e a s n e c e s s a r y fo r t h e p ro t e c t i o n o f t he oth er's person or things, is subje ct to liability to th e oth er for physical harm resulting f rom h is fa ilure to exercise reasona ble care to perfo rm his u n d e rt a k i n g , i f (a) his failure to e x ercise such ca re increase s the risk of such ha rm, or9

(b ) the har m is suffered b e ca u se of th e ot h e r's rel ia n ce up o n the u n d e rt a kin g. Tor ri ngton Co. v. Stu tz

m an , 4 6 S. W .3 d 82 9 , 8 3 8 ( T e x. 20 0 0 ) (ci ti n g R E S TA TE MENT (S E COND ) OF T OR T S § 3 2 3 ( 1 965 )). T he Sa nche z es’ propo sed inst ruction , howev er, subs ti tuted “ hig h deg re e of care” for “ ordin ar y ca re .” W e not e tha t t here a re n o c ases app ly ing a neglig entund ertakin g the oryto a com mo n carrier in this man ner. In Duke v

. Ph il ip Johns on/Al

an Ritchi

e Ar chitec ts P.C ., t h e F o rtW o rt h C o u rtof Appeal s h eld thatarchi tec ts w ho unde rt ook to in sp e ct F ort W orth’ s W ater Gardens, but
w hose co n tr actw it h the C ity of For t W orth de fined t he s cope of thei r duti es and di d not inc lud e a s afetyasses sment, co uld not be l iab le to t he s ur v iv ors o f pers ons w ho drow ned in the W a te r Ga rd ens under a ne g li g ent u nder

tak ing theo ry
. 252 S. W .3d 5 86, 5 98- 99 (Te x . App .–Fo rt W orth 2008 , pet

. den ied). T he court held tha t beca use th e archite cts w ere
me re ly atte mp ting to com ply w ith the ir contractu al obligation s, and noth ing i n the record show ed “ an affirmat iv e act under tak en by Johns on/R it chi e or Johan tg en that broadened the s cope of thei r duty ,” a ne g li g ent u nder tak ing theo ry

di d notappl y . Id. Al thoug h Ex pr eso’ s d uty i n thi s c ase w as not c ontract ual but impos ed by the common l aw , w e find Dukes p e rs u a s i v e
. I n t h i s c a s e , Ex pr eso’ s dut y w a s t h a to f a
common c ar ri er , w it h a hig h degree of care that w as spec ific all y se t outi n the j ur

y ch arg e. T here is nothing in the reco rd, and in fa ct, no allegation b y t he Sa nche z es, th at Expreso took any aff ir mati v e acti ons to un der tak e any

addi ti onal duti es; thus, the ne g li g ent under tak ing theo ry

does not appl y . Id. The Sanc hez es re ly

on Tor ri ngton Co v. Stut

z m an , arg uin g that i n tha t c ase, the Tex as Supreme C our

t hel d tha t a broad- form neg li g ence q uest ion er ro neou sl y omi tted
cer tai n el ements of the p lai nti ffs’ neg li g ence cl aim. 46 S.W .3d a t 837 -3 8. In t hat c ase,10

how ev er , t he defendant cla imed that itdi d notow e any duty , w hil e the pl ain ti ffs c lai med tha t the defend anthad “engaged in an un derta king.” Id. at 839. T h e d e f e n d a nt t hen
com plaine d on a ppe al tha t the b road -form negligence subm ission allowed t he jury to hold it liable regardless of w het her the jury foun d tha t (1) the defend antund ertoo k to perform
serv ices, w hen it kne w

o r sho uld have known that its servi ces w ere ne cessary to protect oth ers; (2) anyone relied on the de fend ant ’s unde rtaking; or (3) w het her the defend ant ’s per formance of its under

tak ing i ncreased the pla int iffs’ r is k o f harm. Id. at 838. In thi s cas e, how ev er , it is undi sput ed that Ex preso ow ed the duty of a com mon carrier to ex ercise a high degree of c a re ; t hus, it w as un nece ssaryto secure these add itiona l fin dings in order to imp ose a duty on Ex preso
. In fact, th e high degree of care sta ndard s ubmit ted t o the j ur y in this case w as more onerous than the one su bmit ted b y t h e S a n c h e ze s u n d e r

t h e ir n e gl ig e n tu n d e rt a k in g t h e o ry. Un d e r t h e ci rc u m s t a n c e s , we hold thatit is nota n abu se of d iscretion to ref use to subm it a neglig entund ertakin g the ory
w hen t he defendant’ s d uty i s e sta bli shed as that o f a c o m m o n c ar ri er
. W e ov er ru le the Sanc hez es’ se cond is sue. III . C ONCL US I ON Hav ing ov er ru led both of the S anche z es’ i ss ues, w e aff ir m the tr ial co urt’ s j udg ment.

_________

__________

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ GIN A M . BE NA

VID ES, J u s t i c e Del iv er ed and filed the 31stday of Aug ust , 201 0.