Otis Engineering Corporation v. Clark

668 S.W.2d 307 (1983)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Matheson worked the evening shift at D's Carrollton plant. He had a history of drinking on the job and was intoxicated on the night of the accident. Donald Roy was Matheson's supervisor, and Rennie Pyle was a co-worker who assisted Matheson on occasion. Pyle testified that he knew of Matheson's drinking problems and that he told Roy on the day of the accident that Matheson was not acting right, was not coordinated, was slurring his words, and that 'we need to get him off the machines.' David Sartain, a fellow worker, testified that Matheson was either sick or drinking, was getting worse, 'his complexion was blue and like he was sick,' and that he was weaving and bobbing on his stool and about to fall into his machine. Roy observed Matheson's condition and was aware that other employees believed he should be removed from the machine. Roy suggested that he should go home. Roy, as he escorted Matheson to the company's parking lot, asked if he was all right and if he could make it home, and Matheson answered that he could. Thirty minutes later, some three miles away from the plant, the fatal accident occurred. Matheson had a blood alcohol content of 0.268% which indicated he had ingested a substantial quantity of alcohol, an amount representing some sixteen to eighteen cocktails if consumed over a period of one hour, or twenty to twenty-five cocktails if consumed over a period of two hours. At that level, it was impossible for anyone to not see that Matheson was intoxicated. Roy testified he feared Matheson might have an accident, knowing that Matheson had to drive on heavily traveled Belt Line Road to reach home. Ps sued D for wrongful death. D maintained a nurses' station on the premises for the benefit of ill or disabled employees. Ps maintained that Roy had other alternatives which the jury could find to be more reasonable, such as taking Matheson to the nurses' station, giving him a ride home, or calling a taxi, the police, or Matheson's wife. Despite this overwhelming evidence, D's motion for summary judgment was granted on the basis that as a matter of law D owed no duty to Ps. Ps appealed, and the appeals court reversed. D appealed.