Court Opinion

ID: 9645054
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 21:11:31.917784+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:06:54.224205
License: Public Domain

McGEE, Justice,
concurring.
I concur in the result the majority has reached. I agree with the holding of the court of appeals that Walters failed to sustain her burden of establishing that Justice was not killed for reasons personal to him. I would, however, hold that Walters is entitled to the benefit of a presumption negating the statutory exclusion.
In order to establish an injury sustained in the course of employment, as a general rule, the claimant in a workers’ compensation suit must satisfy a two-prong test: “(1) the injury must have occurred while the employee was engaged in or about the furtherance of the employer’s business; and (2)the claimant must show that the injury was of a kind and character that had to do with and originated in the employer’s work, trade, business or profession.” Deatherage v. International Insurance Co., 615 S.W.2d 181, 182 (Tex.1981). There are, however, four statutory exclusions to the definition of “injury sustained in the course of employment.” They are:
(1) An injury caused by an act of God, unless the employee is at the time engaged in the performance of duties that subject him to a greater hazard from an act of God responsible for the injury than ordinarily applies to the general public.
(2) An injury caused by the act of a third person intended to injure the employee because of reasons personal to him and not directed against him as an employee, or because of his employment.
(3) An injury received while in a state of intoxication.
(4) An injury caused by the employee’s wilful intention and attempt to injure himself, or to unlawfully injure some other person.
Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 8309, § 1 (emphasis added). The exclusions reflect a legislative determination that certain injuries do not meet the second prong of the test because they are not causally connected to employment. If the employee’s injury is the result of one of the four exclusions enumerated in article 8309, section 1, the injury is not “of a kind and character that had to do with and originated in the employer’s work, trade, business or profession.” See Texas Indemnity Ins. Co. v. Cheely, 232 S.W.2d 124, 126 (Tex.Civ.App.— Amarillo 1950, writ ref’d).
Walters and American States agree there is no evidence as to the reason Justice was killed. American States argues that Walters has failed to prove that Justice was not killed “because of reasons personal to him.” Since Walters has not negated the statutory exclusion, American States claims there is no evidence to support the jury’s finding that Justice was killed in the course of his employment. This contention was sustained by the court of appeals. Walters argues that the court of appeals erred in placing the burden of disproving the exclusion on her instead of requiring American States to affirmatively establish its applicability. In the alternative, Walters contends she is entitled to the benefit of a presumption that Justice was not killed for personal reasons since he was found dead at a place where his duties required him to be, or where he might have properly been, during *429the hours of his employment. I would sustain Walters’ latter contention.
The statutory exclusions to the definition of “injury sustained in the course of employment” are not affirmative defenses. See Traders & General Insurance Co. v. Ross, 263 S.W.2d 673, 675 (Tex.Civ.App.—Galveston 1953, writ ref’d). Rather, they are inferential rebuttal issues. Transport Insurance Co. v. Liggins, 625 S.W.2d 780, 784 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 1981, writ ref’d n.r.e.). Whenever an exclusion is raised by the evidence, the burden is on the claimant to negate the exclusion as part of his case. E.g., Texas Employers’ Insurance Association v. Gregory, 521 S.W.2d 898 (Tex.Civ. App.—Houston [14th Dist.]) (suicide), rev’d on other grounds, 530 S.W.2d 105 (Tex.1975); Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Upton, 492 S.W.2d 623 (Tex.Civ.App.—Fort Worth 1973, no writ) (injuries inflicted by third person); Traders & General Insurance Co. v. Ross, 263 S.W.2d 673 (Tex.Civ.App.—Galveston 1953, writ ref’d) (act of God); Texas Employers Insurance Association v. Monroe, 216 S.W.2d 659 (Tex.Civ.App.—Galveston 1948, writ ref’d n.r.e.) (intoxication). Thus, in any case involving an intentional assault upon the employee, the claimant must persuade the trier of fact that the attack was not motivated by reasons personal to the employee, but was directed against him because of his employment. Highlands Underwriters Insurance Co. v. McGrath, 485 S.W.2d 593 (Tex.Civ.App.—El Paso 1972, no writ).
The majority goes to great lengths to tell us what American States did not do in the trial court. In my opinion, this discussion misses the mark. Granted, the burden was on American States to raise the applicability of the statutory exclusion. Once it was established that Justice’s death was the result of a homicide — an intentional injury inflicted by a third person — American States discharged its burden. At this point, the burden shifted to Walters to establish, by direct or circumstantial evidence, that Justice was not killed for personal reasons. When Walters failed to sustain her burden, as she clearly did, there was no need to instruct the jury that an injury sustained in the course of employment did not include an injury intentionally inflicted on the employee for reasons personal to him. Indeed, in the absence of a presumption that Justice was not killed for personal reasons, the trial court should have sustained American States’ motion for a directed verdict.
I agree with the majority opinion to the extent it holds there was some evidence that Justice was engaged in and about the furtherance of Lamport’s business; i.e.,, that Justice received his fatal injuries during the hours of his employment and was at a place where he might have properly been. Evidence that Lamport and Justice were going to the Airport Marina Hotel to meet a potential client, when coupled with further evidence that both men were found dead in the general area shortly thereafter, supports such an inference.
This does not end our inquiry, however. There must also be evidence that Justice’s injury was of a kind and character that originated in Lamport’s business; i.e., that Justice was not killed for personal reasons. This is where I part company with the majority.
The majority reasons that because “a customer” made three telephone calls and asked to speak with Lamport on each occasion, a jury could reasonably infer that this customer: (1) intended to kill Lamport, (2) did not intend to kill Justice, and (3) did in fact kill both men. There are several problems with this reasoning, not the least of which is that it assumes the same “customer” made each of these three calls, an assumption not supported by the evidence. Even if we accept this assumption, there is still no basis for the majority’s conclusion that this mysterious customer did not intend to kill Justice.
Before we may validly infer the existence of “B” from the existence of “A,” we must establish the existence of a relation between the given fact and the claimed conclusion. For certain purposes, we may accept the claimed conclusion as the basis for action if our hypothesis is nothing more than the formulation of a possibili*430ty. Often, we base our conduct on the truth of a probable hypothesis. But our courts insist, in the course of litigation, that a fact be established by evidence creating more than the mere possibility or, generally speaking, bare probability of its existence. Where a party on whom rests the burden of establishing the existence of a fact relies on circumstantial evidence exclusively for the purpose of discharging his burden, the evidence must be sufficient to establish that the hypothesis for which he contends is more probable than other hypotheses which may be based on such evidence. That is, the evidence must show, given the existence of “A,” that the existence of “B” is more probable than its non-existence.
Cadena, The Pyramiding of Presumptions and Inferences in Texas, 4 St. Mary’s L.J. 1, 3-4 (1972). The majority’s hypothesis fails this test.
In this case there is no evidence from which the jury could reasonably infer the motive of Justice’s assailant. Cf. Commercial Standard Insurance Co. v. Marin, 488 S.W.2d 861 (Tex.Civ.App.—San Antonio 1972, writ ref’d n.r.e.), and cases cited therein. The applicability of the statutory exclusion distinguishes the instant case from Deatherage and Scott v. Millers Mutual Fire Insurance Co., 524 S.W.2d 285 (Tex.1975). As in Deatherage and Scott, the jury in this case was free to infer that Justice received his injuries while he “was engaged in or about the furtherance of his employer’s business.” The jury could not, however, draw a second inference, based solely on this first inference, that Justice was not killed for personal reasons. This is because a jury’s verdict must “be based upon more than surmise and guesswork.” Phoenix Refining Co. v. Powell, 251 S.W.2d 892, 902 (Tex.Civ.App.—San Antonio 1952, writ ref’d n.r.e.).
I am, however, persuaded that basic fairness justifies a relaxation of the claimant’s burden of proof in cases of unexplained assaults, particularly when the victim’s death has removed the only possible witness. For this reason, I would adopt a presumption negating the statutory exclusion. The adoption of a presumption favoring the claimant, moreover, is consistent with a liberal construction of the Workers’ Compensation Act in favor of the employee and his beneficiaries. See Huffman v. Southern Underwriters, 133 Tex. 354, 128 S.W.2d 4 (1939). A liberal construction in favor of compensation requires a restrictive application of the statutory exclusions to the definition of injury sustained in the course of employment.
When an employee is found dead under circumstances that indicate his death occurred within the time and area limits of his employment, we have held the jury is free to infer that the employee received his fatal injuries during the course of his employment. Deatherage v. International Insurance Co., 615 S.W.2d at 183. In my opinion, when the cause of death is the intentional act of an unknown assailant whose motives cannot be discerned, these same facts should also give rise to a rebut-table presumption that the assailant acted for reasons other than those personal to the employee. With the aid of such a presumption, the evidence is legally sufficient to support the judgment on the jury’s verdict.
SPEARS and KILGARLIN, JJ., join in this concurring opinion.