CompFox AI Summary
This case concerns an appeal by Phillip Darren Wooldridge against TXU Electric Delivery Company after a trial court judgment found him partially responsible for injuries sustained from electrocution during a roofing accident. Wooldridge argued the trial court erred by not including a specific jury instruction regarding the employment status of Johnny Calhoun, a designated responsible third party, and the applicability of Texas Health and Safety Code Section 752. The trial court refused the instruction, allowing alternative theories of liability. The jury ultimately attributed varying percentages of negligence to multiple parties, including Wooldridge, Jim Gribble, Wayne’s Roofing, Johnny Calhoun, Brazos River Authority, and TXU. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in submitting the jury charge.
Wooldridge v. TXU Electric Delivery Co. is a workers' compensation case decided in Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas). This case addresses legal issues related to compensation claims, benefits, and court rulings.
It is commonly referenced in legal research involving workers' compensation laws in Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas).
Full Decision Text1 Pages
This case concerns an appeal by Phillip Darren Wooldridge against TXU Electric Delivery Company after a trial court judgment found him partially responsible for injuries sustained from electrocution during a roofing accident. Wooldridge argued the trial court erred by not including a specific jury instruction regarding the employment status of Johnny Calhoun, a designated responsible third party, and the applicability of Texas Health and Safety Code Section 752. The trial court refused the instruction, allowing alternative theories of liability. The jury ultimately attributed varying percentages of negligence to multiple parties, including Wooldridge, Jim Gribble, Wayne’s Roofing, Johnny Calhoun, Brazos River Authority, and TXU. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in submitting the jury charge.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.