Court Opinion

ID: 9771047
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 16:29:46.783664+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:24.086690
License: Public Domain

DUNN, Justice,
concurring and dissenting.
I concur with the majority on all points of error other than the appellee’s cross-points of error one, two, and three from which I respectfully dissent.

Cross-point One

Initially, I disagree with the majority’s finding as to when the cause of action asserted by the appellants accrued. Further, I disagree "with the analysis applied by the majority.
*640U.S. Brass asserts that the trial court erred in denying U.S. Brass’ motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict with respect to appellants’ negligence cause of action and motion to disregard the jury’s answers to question numbers 7, 7A, 8, and 9 because it was established as a matter of law that 11 appellants were barred in negligence by the statute of limitations.
Initially, U.S. Brass complains that the discovery rule is not applicable to the negligence causes of action of these 11 appellants, inasmuch as they filed suit more that two years after the date of their first leak and were therefore barred by limitations. U.S. Brass argues that these appellants’ negligence cause of action accrued, for the purpose of the statute of limitations, on the date of their first leak, i.e. that the statute of limitations began to run on this date. Therefore, U.S. Brass concludes that the 11 appellants’ causes of action for negligence were untimely filed inasmuch the first leak of each of the 11 appellants occurred more than two years before the action was filed.
The date of the accrual of the cause of action is a question of law. Willis v. Maverick, 760 S.W.2d 642, 644 (Tex.1988). To determine this date, we must address the cause of action asserted by the plaintiff and the act he complains of. If the act complained of is unlawful, then the injury occurs at the time the act is committed, and the statute of limitations begins to run from the date of the act. Atkins v. Crosland, 417 S.W.2d 150, 153 (Tex.1967). If the act complained of is legal at the time it was committed, then the action does not accrue until the injury occurs. Id. A cause of action for negligence accrues when the duty of ordinary care is breached by some act or omission, even though the injury is not immediately apparent, and the plaintiff may be unaware of the cause of action. American Centennial Ins. Co. v. Canal Ins. Co., 810 S.W.2d 246, 255 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1991), aff'd in part and rev’d in part, 843 S.W.2d 480 (Tex.1992). As a general rule, the statute of limitations begins to run from commission of the negligent act, if the negligent act constitutes the invasion of the legally-protected interest of another, even if the one injured is unaware of the negligence. Metal Structures Corp. v. Plains Textiles, Inc., 470 S.W.2d 93, 98 (Tex.Civ.App.—Amarillo 1971, writ ref'd n.r.e.). Therefore, a cause of action for negligence must be brought within two years of the day the duty of ordinary care is breached, even though the injury may not be apparent and the plaintiff may be unaware of the breach.
The discovery rule applies to causes of action that can be characterized as inherently undiscoverable. Johnson v. Abbey, 737 S.W.2d 68, 69 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1987, no writ). The discovery rule is a judicially-created test that acts as an exception to the general rule of accrual for negligence. Moreno v. Sterling Drug, Inc., 787 S.W.2d 348, 353 (Tex.1990). If the discovery rule applies, the limitations period does not begin until the plaintiff discovers, or through the exercise of reasonable care and diligence should discover, the nature of the injury. Rose v. Baker & Botts, 816 S.W.2d 805, 810 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1991, writ denied).
In this case, the plaintiffs stated a cause of action for negligence against U.S. Brass and the other manufacturers of the plumbing components, asserting that they failed to adequately design the plumbing system; failed to adequately manufacture the plumbing system or its components; failed to adequately inspect or test the plumbing system or its components; failed to give adequate instructions on installation; failed to give any or adequate warnings regarding the limitation of use of the plumbing system or components; and represented the plumbing system was suitable for site-built housing. If their assertions are correct, it is apparent that the duty of ordinary care was breached when the defective plumbing system was installed in the respective homes, even though the injury was not apparent at the time and the plaintiffs were not aware of the breach. Therefore, the cause of action accrued at the time of installation. However, because the parties purchased a completed home, including the defective plumbing system, concealed within the walls of the respective homes, there was no way for them to discover the defects alleged until such time as events occurred from which they would know or should have *641known of the alleged breach of duty by the defendants. Therefore, because the plumbing system is concealed, the breach of duty is inherently undiscoverable, and the discovery rule should be applied. Johnson, 737 S.W.2d at 69.
It was for the jury to decide, not the majority of the Court, when each plaintiff did discover or should have discovered that he or she had a defective plumbing system as this is an issue of fact. Coyel v. Mortgage Bond Co., 124 S.W.2d 204, 206 (Tex.Civ.App.—Waco 1939, no writ). The jury found, in answering question number eight, that each plaintiff “did not discover, nor in the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have discovered, the negligent conduct of the Defendants.” Because U.S. Brass does not assert that this finding is against the great weight of the evidence, the finding of the jury that the plaintiffs’ cause of action after application of the discovery rule is within the statute of limitations prevails.
I would overrule cross-point of error one.

Cross-point Two

In cross-point of error two, U.S. Brass asserts the trial court erred in denying its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and to disregard the jury’s answers to question nine (what sum of money would reasonably compensate the plaintiffs for the defendants’ negligent conduct) because there is no evidence to prove the causation of damages to the appellants’ homes or personal property. U.S. Brass argues that because the appellants offered no evidence to show which leaks were caused by a given manufacturer’s product or what damage resulted from those leaks, there is no evidence to support liability for the damages caused by those leaks. I interpret U.S. Brass’ point of error to be a complaint that there is no evidence to support the jury’s response to question seven that the negligence of the other defendants was a proximate cause of damages to the plaintiffs, but that of Vanguard was not.
I would hold, as the majority does, that there is no evidence to support the finding that the other defendants were negligent to the exclusion of Vanguard. There is evidence in the record that all of the companies were involved in producing the defective plumbing system. However, unlike the majority, I would find that the damage to the property was an indivisible injury, and hold that all four companies are jointly and severally liable, which would necessitate a remand for a determination of comparative liability between the defendants, including Vanguard, which could possibly mean a different percentage attributable to U.S. Brass.
U.S. Brass argues that while the damages for the replacement of the plumbing system and the mental anguish are indivisible injuries, the repairs to the home and the personal property caused by the plumbing system leaks should not be considered in a class of indivisible injuries since the damages were associated with specific leaks. They cite Century 21 Page One Realty v. Naghad, 760 S.W.2d 305 (Tex.App.—Texarkana 1988, no writ).
An indivisible injury is “an injury which from its nature cannot be apportioned with reasonable certainty to the individual wrongdoers.” Landers v. East Texas Salt Water Disposal Co., 151 Tex. 251, 248 S.W.2d 731, 734 (Tex.1952). “Where the tortious acts of two or more wrongdoers join to produce an indivisible injury, ... all of the wrongdoers will be held jointly and severally hable.” Id. There is evidence in this case that ah four of the companies were involved in the manufacturing of the defective plumbing systems which were installed in each of the respective homes. It is impossible to tell which part of the defective system actually caused each respective leak. The entire system was defective.
The Restatement of Torts states the rule applicable to the facts in this case.
Where the tortious conduct of two or more actors has combined to bring about harm to the plaintiff, and one or more of the actors seeks to limit his liability on the ground that the harm is capable of apportionment among them, the burden of proof as to the apportionment is upon each such actor.
Restatement (Second) Of Torts § 433B(2) (1963). Thus, when a defendant has in fact caused harm to the plaintiff, he may not *642escape liability merely because the harm he has inflicted had combined with similar harm inflicted by other wrongdoers. See Restatement (Second) Of Torts § 433B(2) cmt. d (1963).
U.S. Brass asserts that the harm to the appellants can be apportioned between Shell, Celanese, Vanguard, and itself. In this case there is evidence that U.S. Brass, Shell, Ce-lanese and Vanguard were negligent in manufacturing a totally defective plumbing system. This negligence combined to cause injury to the appellants. Damage to each home due to this negligence was proven to the extent necessary under the indivisible injury theory. Therefore, the burden shifted to the defendants to apportion the damages among themselves as set out herein above in the Restatement (Second) of Torts.
I would sustain cross-point two as to Vanguard, and I would remand this cause to the trial court for a redetermination of apportionment of damages among the four defendants.

Cross-point Three

In cross-point of error three, U.S. Brass asserts that the trial court did not err in disregarding question number five (regarding what sum of money would compensate the plaintiffs for the defendants’ violation of the DTPA) because there is no evidence to prove the causation of damages to the appellants’ homes or personal property. I interpret this cross-point as arguing there is no evidence to support the jury’s allocation of liability in response to question 6A, or the exclusion of Admiral Marine and Wrightway from liability, because none of the evidence shows whether the leaks came from U.S. Brass, Vanguard, Admiral Marine, or Wrightway fittings.
Again, I would hold, as the majority does, that there is no evidence to support a holding of liability against U.S. Brass and Vanguard to the exclusion of Wrightway and Admiral Marine. However, for the reasons set out in my dissent from cross-point two, I would find that the appellants’ injuries were indivisible. I would hold that all four companies are jointly and severally liable in accordance with chapter 32 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code and render judgment accordingly.