Opinion ID: 1635386
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Solomon's Arguments

Text: Solomon disputes that the employment-at-will doctrine is implicated in this case. He observes that the jury was charged on a broad-form negligence question, not on particular theories of negligent investigation or negligent evaluation. His primary complaint is not that he was wrongfully terminated, but that Mission's negligent collection procedures destroyed his prospects for future employment as a truck driver. Solomon contends that recognizing a common law duty to use reasonable care in collecting urine samples satisfies the Greater Houston Transportation Co. v. Phillips risk/utility test because an employee's need for protection from a flawed drug-test result outweighs the magnitude of the burden of guarding against this injury. 801 S.W.2d 523, 525 (Tex.1990) (noting that when considering whether there is a basis for imposing a duty, courts consider several interrelated factors, including the risk, foreseeability, and likelihood of injury weighed against the social utility of the actor's conduct, the magnitude of the burden of guarding against the injury, and the consequences of placing the burden on the defendant). [4] On the issue of causation, Solomon argues that he produced sufficient direct and circumstantial evidence for the jury to find: (1) he never used marijuana; (2) Mission's negligence rendered the sample scientifically invalid; and (3) the laboratories performing the tests did not contaminate the sample. From these facts, Solomon contends that the jury could reasonably infer that Mission's negligence proximately caused a false positive test result and that he presented legally sufficient evidence to support the trial court's mental anguish and exemplary damages awards.