Herring Et Al V. Renewable Energy Systems Americas, Inc. Et Al

Case Background

On January 27, 2021, Charles Otis Herring and Pamela Gary Herring filed a personal injury lawsuit alleging workplace injuries caused as a result of the negligence and harassment of his employers.

The case was originally filed in the 329th Judicial District Court of Wharton County, Texas, with Case No. CV52582. Under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1446, Renewable Energy Systems Americas, Inc. (“RES”) notified that it had moved the lawsuit to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas – Houston Division. Judge George C Hanks, Jr. presided over this case. [Case number: 4:21cv260]

Cause

Charles Otis Herring and Pamela Gary Herring, residents of El Campo, Texas, were husband and wife. Defendant TrueBlue PeopleReady Inc. and Renewable Energy Systems America Inc. were involved in this case.

The incident occurred on the morning of October 17, 2019, at the Wagyu solar installation facility in Damon, Texas. Charles Otis was working with the Tracking Crew during the installation of solar panel hardware. Specifically, he was assigned to the motor crew, responsible for aligning and securing the torque tubes that supported the panels.

On that day, Charles suffered a ruptured inguinal hernia and a herniated bladder while manually lifting a motor mount and torque tube assembly weighing over 340 pounds. This task was part of his assigned duties, which required him to handle at least 85 assemblies per 10-hour shift. Charles had no choice in this matter and was informed by RES field managers that any unfinished tasks would be carried over to the next day.

While performing his duties, a torque tube assembly fell on Charles during manual installation. He was working with two others on securing the motor mounts but lacked adequate safety or protective equipment. Charles had reported these issues to both RES field managers and the liaison personnel from PeopleReady Inc. Initially, he was told he would not need to lift more than 50 pounds, but this was not enforced.

Despite raising concerns about lifting weights exceeding the stated limit, no corrective action was taken. The only personal protective equipment provided was inadequate. The managers should have anticipated potential injuries due to the physical demands of the job. Charles was frequently criticized for being too slow and threatened with termination if he complained about the working conditions.

Injury

Plaintiff Charles’ physical injuries were thoroughly documented. Charles suffered a ruptured inguinal hernia and a herniated bladder while manually lifting a motor mount and torque tube assembly weighing over 340 pounds. He endured long-term medical limitations resulting from these injuries. Additionally, he experienced a loss of sexual function due to his injuries. Consequently, these issues led to a loss of consortium claim filed by his wife.

Damages

As a direct result of the Defendants’ negligence and harassment, the Plaintiffs suffered physical pain, disfigurement, and a loss of earning capacity. They also experienced economic losses, loss of consortium, emotional distress, and mental anguish due to Plaintiff’s injuries. The Defendants’ conduct was malicious, deliberate, callous, and unconscionable, leading to the Plaintiffs’ injuries. This behavior entitled the Plaintiffs to exemplary damages under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 41.003(a).

The Plaintiffs claimed that the Defendants were responsible for their employees’ actions under the doctrine of respondeat superior. The Plaintiffs’ injuries resulted from the gross negligence, malice, or unconscionable conduct of one or more Defendants. This qualified the Plaintiffs for exemplary damages under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 41.003(a).

If the jury determined that the Defendants’ actions were intentional, the Plaintiffs could recover up to three times the amount of economic damages and damages for mental anguish. Additionally, the Plaintiffs were entitled to recover reasonable and necessary attorney fees and court costs.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

Legal Representation

  • Plaintiff(s): Charles Otis Herring | Pamela Renae Herring
    • Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Pro se (self-represented)
  • Defendant(s): Renewable Energy Systems Americas, Inc. | TrueBlue People Ready, Inc. (later terminated)
    • Counsel for Defendant(s): Ernesto Alvarez , Jr | Katherine T Garber | James M Kimbell

Claims

Plaintiff Charles filed this claim due to the negligence and harassment of one or more Defendants. The issues were as follows:

a. The Defendants failed to inform Plaintiff about the inherent dangers of the work required on the Motor Mount Assembly Crew.

b. The Defendants did not provide Plaintiff with the necessary protective equipment, which directly contributed to his accident and resulting injuries.

c. The Defendants created a fearful environment where workers faced threats of retaliation and intimidation for advocating their rights. They imposed daily quotas on Plaintiff Charles’ team.

d. The Defendants knowingly assigned tasks that violated OSHA safety standards. They required Plaintiff to lift weights frequently exceeding their own policy limits, resulting in his injuries.

Defense

Both Defendants, in their answer, stated that any negligence or wrongful conduct by other persons or entities not under RES’s control was the primary, or at least a contributing, cause of the issues raised in Plaintiffs’ Original Petition. They argued that any damages incurred by Plaintiffs resulted from the actions of third parties beyond PeopleReady’s control. Consequently, PeopleReady should not be held liable for these acts. They also claimed that any financial award against PeopleReady should be reduced according to the degree of fault attributable to these other parties. Alternatively, PeopleReady sought contributions from these third parties, proportional to their share of the fault.

Jury Verdict

On February 9, 2024, the jury returned a unanimous defense verdict after finding that Defendant RES had not harassed Plaintiff Charles because of his race.

Post-trial Motion

On February 14, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. They claimed that the verdict was unreasonable as the jury decided on only one claim of harassment out of six claims. Plaintiff argued that no reasonable jury could have absolved defendant RES of the liability for Plaintiff’s injuries due to its findings that Plaintiff did not prove the harassment allegation as it was not required to prove the harassment allegations.

Court Documents:

Available upon request