Court Opinion

ID: 9445568
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 21:33:15.492442+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:30:19.863366
License: Public Domain

TUTTLE, Circuit Judge
(dissenting),
With deference to the views of the majority, I respectfully dissent.
The only possible explanation of motivation for the shooting here was that stated by Arrington when he shot the employee Davis, “I told you I’d kill you.”
The only possible incident to which that remark could refer was the altercation arising immediately out of the carrying on of his work by Davis. For the court to hold under these circumstances that the jury could not infer (with all the legal restrictions normally placed around that term) that the shooting arose out of the course of the employment is contrary to my understanding of the functions of court and jury. The opinion cites cases that support the theory that where an employee is injured from an altercation arising out of the manner of doing the employer’s work recovery may be had. See particularly Commercial Standard Insurance Co. v. Austin, Tex.Civ.App., 128 S.W.2d 836. It is for the jury, not the court, to say whether three months of apparent friendship was sufficient to end the chain of causation here, especially in light of the statement made by the aggressor, “I told you I’d kill you,” which remark painted in outline so clear that even a jury might see its links a chain of causation tying in the earlier threat with its repetition at the time the deed was done.
I think the evidence was more than ample for submission to a jury. I would reverse for a jury trial.