Non-Subscriber can be Sued after Employee Killed by Bull

The Texas Supreme Court ruled June 12, 2020, that the Farm Animals Activities Act does not protect a non-subscribing rancher from suit filed by the family members of an employee who died in the course and scope of his employment when he was trampled by a bull. In Waak v. Rodriguez (No. 19-0167) the court held that the non-subscriber could be sued to recover damages for the ranch’s alleged negligence in causing the death.

Conway and Marlene Waak were ranchers in Fayette County when they hired Raul Zuniga to work the cattle, landscape, and cut hay. Eventually Zuniga began working for the Waaks and living on the ranch in a mobile home he was buying from them.

Conway taught Zuniga how to work and cut cattle. In October 2013, Conway asked Zuniga to move 20 head of cattle from one end of the ranch to the other, something Zuniga had done many times. The Waaks then left the ranch to run errands in Brenham. After moving most of the cattle, Zuniga called the Waaks to confirm that he should move the last three remaining in the pen in the barn: a 2,000 pound bull, a cow, and the cow’s calf. They replied that he should.

The Waaks returned home to find Zuniga lying dead behind the barn. The bull and the two cows were still in the pen. The medical examiner determined that Zuniga’s cause of death was “blunt force and crush injuries” that were “severe enough to have come from extensive force like that of a large animal trampling the body”.

Zuniga’s parents and surviving children sued the Waaks, who were nonsubscribers under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, alleging wrongful death and survival claims. The Zunigas alleged that the bull killed Zuniga and that the Waaks were negligent in several respects, including failing to provide a safe workplace, failing to train Zuniga and warn him of the dangers of working cattle, and failing to supervise him.

The trial court granted summary judgment for the Waaks after concluding that the Farm Animal Activity Act barred the claims. The court of appeals reversed, holding that Zuniga “was not a participant in a farm animal activity” for whose injuries and death the Act limits liability. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the Waaks’ appeal.

The Supreme Court held that the Farm Animal Act does not cover ranchers and ranch hands and did not shield the Waaks from liability for any negligence resulting in Zuniga’s death. Ranch hands do not work as amateurs or professionals, they do not pay to do their work and they ordinarily do not work for free. Ranch hands have none of the characteristics the Farm Animal Act lists for “participants.” Ranchers, as such, are not farm animal-activity organizers, facilities providers, trainers, equipment renters and showmen. They have none of the qualities the act lists for those it protects.

The court ruled that an employee of a “nonsubscribing” employer under the Worker’s Compensation Act, though not receiving compensation benefits, has a remedy against the rancher through the filing of a negligence action. Though the act limits the nonsubscribing employer’s defenses, it does not prevent an employer from asserting the liability shield of the Farm Animal Act. A ranch hand accidentally injured on the job by falling, by something falling on him, by equipment, by twisting his back or pulling a muscle, by almost anything, can sue his employer and recover damages as long as he was not intoxicated. But he could not do so if the employer were protected by the Farm Animal Act. The court of appeals correctly concluded that the Farm Animal Act does not apply to ranchers and ranch hands acting as such.