Quaker Petroleum Chemicals Co. v. Waldrop
Texas Court of Appeals
75 S.W.3d 549 (2002)
- Written by Kelly Nielsen
Facts
Dave Edmonds stored chemicals in a warehouse on behalf of Quaker Petroleum Chemicals Company (Quaker) (defendant). Linda Waldrop and Louis Tuttle (plaintiffs) lived near the warehouse. Jane McCord, her son Dillon, and her husband (plaintiffs) also lived nearby. One day, Waldrop noticed the warehouse had a sharp smell inside and later went to the emergency room with respiratory issues. Quaker discovered that a chemical barrel had leaked. Quaker sent Rick Talley to visit the warehouse’s neighbors. Talley told McCord and Waldrop that if anyone even thought about suing Quaker over the leak, Quaker would countersue. Ultimately, Quaker paid Waldrop’s medical bills in exchange for her promising not to sue over the leak. Edmonds, McCord’s family, and Waldrop all attended the same church. Over the next few months, Edmonds repeatedly made comments at church events within McCord’s hearing, implying McCord and Waldrop were “sue-happy” and causing problems. McCord’s son Dillon then became seriously ill, and McCord’s brother-in-law died. Edmonds told McCord that if bad things had happened to her family, it was God punishing them for not living right. These comments deeply upset McCord and Waldrop, ultimately prompting them to change churches to avoid Edmonds. Two years after the leak, McCord’s family, Waldrop, Tuttle, and two others sued Quaker for negligence regarding the leak. The complaint was later amended to add claims for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED). These IIED claims were based on allegations that (1) Talley and Edmonds were Quaker’s representatives and had made statements that caused significant emotional distress to McCord, Waldrop, and the other plaintiffs and (2) Quaker’s chemical leak had caused them all emotional distress. The case went to trial. A jury found Quaker was liable for IIED and awarded damages to Waldrop, McCord, and McCord’s son Dillon. Quaker asked the trial court to dismiss the IIED claims despite the jury’s verdict. The trial court denied the request. Quaker appealed to the Texas Court of Appeals.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Green, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

