Апелляционный суд Техаса отклонил иск вдовы рабочего ранчо, убитого гидравлической шлюзкой

A Texas appeals court ruled Thursday that a ranch employer that did not carry workers compensation insurance was shielded from a wrongful death suit over a ranch hand killed by a hydraulic cattle chute because the accident fell under the state’s Farm Animal Liability Act. In Kinnibrugh v. Poteet, the Texas Court of Appeals, 11th District, held as a matter of first impression that the law applies to risks inherent in farm animal activities and livestock handling even when an animal does not directly cause the injury. Richard Poteet, an experienced ranch hand who had worked for Randal and Beverly Kinnibrugh for 11 years, was vaccinating cattle with the couple’s son and employee, Kyle Kinnibrugh, when a cow went down in a hydraulic squeeze chute. Mr. Poteet yelled “let him up,” which the workers understood as a signal to release the chute so the cow could stand. Kyle Kinnibrugh released the chute without checking whether Mr. Poteet was clear, and Mr. Poteet was killed when his head was crushed by the chute’s side panels. Mr. Poteet’s widow sued the ranch owners, alleging negligence, gross negligence and vicarious liability. A trial court denied their bid for summary judgment, finding the statute did not apply because the death was not caused directly by an animal. The appeals court reversed, ruling that vaccinating cattle is expressly covered as a farm animal activity and that use of the hydraulic chute was directly related to that work. The court also rejected the widow’s argument that applying the law violated the Texas Constitution’s open courts provision. The opinion noted that the ranch owners were nonsubscribers to workers compensation insurance, but found the wrongful death claim was statutory rather than a protected common-law claim and that the Farm Animal Liability Act contains exceptions that can permit recovery in some circumstances. The court found no applicable exception, ruling that although the chute operation created an extreme risk, there was insufficient evidence that the defendants were subjectively aware Mr. Poteet was in danger when he gave the signal to release the chute.