law-joint-enterprise concept | alter ego theory |
ELEMENTS OF JOINT ENTERPRISE
The essential elements of a joint enterprise, which interrelate, require (1) an agreement,
express or implied, among the group members; (2) a common purpose to be carried out
by the group; (3) a “community of pecuniary interest" in that common purpose, among
the members; and (4) an equal right to a voice in the direction of the enterprise, giving
rise to an equal right of control over the enterprise or project formed to carry out that
purpose. See St. Joseph Hosp. v. Wolff, 94 S.W.3d 513, 526-28 (Tex. 2002); Shoemaker v. Estate of
Whistler, 513 S.W.2d 10, 16B17 (Tex. 1974). Thus, the joint-enterprise elements must exist with respect to the
same purpose and enterprise. St. Joseph Hosp., 94 S.W.3d at 529.
Seureau v. Exxon Mobil Corp (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Oct. 16, 2008)(Brown)
We conclude that there was no agreement, common purpose, community of pecuniary interest, or equal right to
control, with respect to the possible acquisition or development of additional lands beyond the original 720
acres, including the lands addressed by the 1966 Letter Agreement. Accordingly, we decline to apply the
doctrine of joint enterprise. See id. at 528.
This principle takes on added significance in a case in which the members of the claimed joint enterprise have a
more complicated, ongoing relationship. See id. In such a case, the evidence may demonstrate numerous
agreements arising from an assortment of common purposes, thus leading to “a number of possible projects or
'enterprises' devoted to carrying them out." Id.
Seureau v. Exxon Mobil Corp (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Oct. 16, 2008)(Brown)
FN: For the purposes of this appeal, we will assume, without deciding, that the theory of joint enterprise extends
beyond negligence claims to include the Seureaus' fraud and contract allegations. See Shoemaker v. Estate of
Whistler, 513 S.W.2d 10, 16-17 (Tex. 1974) (adopting Restatement formulation of joint enterprise); Restatement
(Second) of Torts § 491(1) & cmts. (1965) (imputing responsibility “for physical harm to other persons caused by
the negligence of any member") (emphasis added).
Mosqueda v. G&H Diversified MFG (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Jan. 31, 2007, pet filed)(Seymore)
(workplace injury, borrowed employees, workers compensation act, exclusive remedy, alter ego, joint business
enterprise)
Mosqueda v. G & H Diversified MFG., Inc.
AFFIRMED: Opinion by Justice Seymore
14-04-00183-CV Guillermina Mosqueda v. G & H Diversified MFG., Inc. and Pacesetter Personnel Service, Inc.--
Appeal from 281st District Court of Harris County.
Justice Seymore wrote a second concurring opinion in Mosqueda v. G&H Diversified MFG (Tex.App.- Houston
[14th Dist.] Jan. 31, 2007)(concurring opinion by Justice Seymore)
Justice Edelman dissented in Mosqueda v. G&H Diversified MFG (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Jan. 31, 2007)
(dissenting opinion by Edelman)
law-joint-enterprise concept | alter ego theory |
ELEMENTS OF JOINT ENTERPRISE
The essential elements of a joint enterprise, which interrelate, require (1) an agreement,
express or implied, among the group members; (2) a common purpose to be carried out
by the group; (3) a “community of pecuniary interest" in that common purpose, among
the members; and (4) an equal right to a voice in the direction of the enterprise, giving
rise to an equal right of control over the enterprise or project formed to carry out that
purpose. See St. Joseph Hosp. v. Wolff, 94 S.W.3d 513, 526-28 (Tex. 2002); Shoemaker v. Estate of
Whistler, 513 S.W.2d 10, 16B17 (Tex. 1974). Thus, the joint-enterprise elements must exist with respect to the
same purpose and enterprise. St. Joseph Hosp., 94 S.W.3d at 529.
Seureau v. Exxon Mobil Corp (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Oct. 16, 2008)(Brown)
We conclude that there was no agreement, common purpose, community of pecuniary interest, or equal right to
control, with respect to the possible acquisition or development of additional lands beyond the original 720
acres, including the lands addressed by the 1966 Letter Agreement. Accordingly, we decline to apply the
doctrine of joint enterprise. See id. at 528.
This principle takes on added significance in a case in which the members of the claimed joint enterprise have a
more complicated, ongoing relationship. See id. In such a case, the evidence may demonstrate numerous
agreements arising from an assortment of common purposes, thus leading to “a number of possible projects or
'enterprises' devoted to carrying them out." Id.
Seureau v. Exxon Mobil Corp (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Oct. 16, 2008)(Brown)
FN: For the purposes of this appeal, we will assume, without deciding, that the theory of joint enterprise extends
beyond negligence claims to include the Seureaus' fraud and contract allegations. See Shoemaker v. Estate of
Whistler, 513 S.W.2d 10, 16-17 (Tex. 1974) (adopting Restatement formulation of joint enterprise); Restatement
(Second) of Torts § 491(1) & cmts. (1965) (imputing responsibility “for physical harm to other persons caused by
the negligence of any member") (emphasis added).
Mosqueda v. G&H Diversified MFG (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Jan. 31, 2007, pet filed)(Seymore)
(workplace injury, borrowed employees, workers compensation act, exclusive remedy, alter ego, joint business
enterprise)
Mosqueda v. G & H Diversified MFG., Inc.
AFFIRMED: Opinion by Justice Seymore
14-04-00183-CV Guillermina Mosqueda v. G & H Diversified MFG., Inc. and Pacesetter Personnel Service, Inc.--
Appeal from 281st District Court of Harris County.
Justice Seymore wrote a second concurring opinion in Mosqueda v. G&H Diversified MFG (Tex.App.- Houston
[14th Dist.] Jan. 31, 2007)(concurring opinion by Justice Seymore)
Justice Edelman dissented in Mosqueda v. G&H Diversified MFG (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Jan. 31, 2007)
(dissenting opinion by Edelman)
law-joint-enterprise concept | alter ego theory |
ELEMENTS OF JOINT ENTERPRISE
The essential elements of a joint enterprise, which interrelate, require (1) an agreement,
express or implied, among the group members; (2) a common purpose to be carried out
by the group; (3) a “community of pecuniary interest" in that common purpose, among
the members; and (4) an equal right to a voice in the direction of the enterprise, giving
rise to an equal right of control over the enterprise or project formed to carry out that
purpose. See St. Joseph Hosp. v. Wolff, 94 S.W.3d 513, 526-28 (Tex. 2002); Shoemaker v. Estate of
Whistler, 513 S.W.2d 10, 16B17 (Tex. 1974). Thus, the joint-enterprise elements must exist with respect to the
same purpose and enterprise. St. Joseph Hosp., 94 S.W.3d at 529.
Seureau v. Exxon Mobil Corp (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Oct. 16, 2008)(Brown)
We conclude that there was no agreement, common purpose, community of pecuniary interest, or equal right to
control, with respect to the possible acquisition or development of additional lands beyond the original 720
acres, including the lands addressed by the 1966 Letter Agreement. Accordingly, we decline to apply the
doctrine of joint enterprise. See id. at 528.
This principle takes on added significance in a case in which the members of the claimed joint enterprise have a
more complicated, ongoing relationship. See id. In such a case, the evidence may demonstrate numerous
agreements arising from an assortment of common purposes, thus leading to “a number of possible projects or
'enterprises' devoted to carrying them out." Id.
Seureau v. Exxon Mobil Corp (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Oct. 16, 2008)(Brown)
FN: For the purposes of this appeal, we will assume, without deciding, that the theory of joint enterprise extends
beyond negligence claims to include the Seureaus' fraud and contract allegations. See Shoemaker v. Estate of
Whistler, 513 S.W.2d 10, 16-17 (Tex. 1974) (adopting Restatement formulation of joint enterprise); Restatement
(Second) of Torts § 491(1) & cmts. (1965) (imputing responsibility “for physical harm to other persons caused by
the negligence of any member") (emphasis added).
Mosqueda v. G&H Diversified MFG (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Jan. 31, 2007, pet filed)(Seymore)
(workplace injury, borrowed employees, workers compensation act, exclusive remedy, alter ego, joint business
enterprise)
Mosqueda v. G & H Diversified MFG., Inc.
AFFIRMED: Opinion by Justice Seymore
14-04-00183-CV Guillermina Mosqueda v. G & H Diversified MFG., Inc. and Pacesetter Personnel Service, Inc.--
Appeal from 281st District Court of Harris County.
Justice Seymore wrote a second concurring opinion in Mosqueda v. G&H Diversified MFG (Tex.App.- Houston
[14th Dist.] Jan. 31, 2007)(concurring opinion by Justice Seymore)
Justice Edelman dissented in Mosqueda v. G&H Diversified MFG (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Jan. 31, 2007)
(dissenting opinion by Edelman)