UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_______________________
No. 98-50467
Summary Calendar
_______________________
SAUL ALMANZAR,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
NEWHYB CORPORATION; HYBRITEX
AUTOMOTIVE CONTROLS, A Division
of I.P.M. Products Corporation,
Defendant-Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
(EP-96-CV-140)
_________________________________________________________________
October 4, 1999
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
In this appeal, Saul Almanzar contests the district
court’s grant of summary judgment to his employer Hybritex
Automotive Corp. in a case concerning Almanzar’s back injury while
at work. As a nonsubscriber to Texas Workers Compensation
insurance, Hybritex may be liable for negligence that causes
employee injuries.
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
The event that triggered Almanzar’s back injury -- a
routine lifting task that he had performed several times a day for
two years -- goes far toward explaining the district court’s
ruling. There is no evidence that the lifting done by Almanzar was
unusual or extreme. Moreover, the amount lifted at any one time
was in his control. The district court responded as follows to
Almanzar’s negligence allegations of failure to provide adequate
safety rules and regulations, furnish safe machinery, provide a
safe workplace and select competent fellow servants:
The Court finds that Plaintiff has raised
no fact issue on the adequacy of Defendant’s
safety instruction or the adequacy of the
materials provided to Plaintiff to transport
the heat sinks. The summary judgment record
includes Plaintiff’s acknowledgment that he
received instruction on Defendant’s safety
rules and safe working procedures. The record
also indicates that Plaintiff was provided a
small box and a dolly, and was only required
to lift as much weight as he could. Under
these circumstances, it is difficult to
conceive of what rules or equipment would have
foreseeably made Plaintiff’s injury less
likely to occur. Plaintiff performed the
exact same task five to six times a day, five
days a week, for two years prior to his
injury.
The district court also found no basis for a need for assistance
where appellant’s job only required him to lift what he could lift
alone.
Having considered the summary judgment issues de novo, we
see no genuine issues of material fact under Texas law that
required a full trial.
AFFIRMED.
2