Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

Alan Petrie was assaulted and robbed in The Gallery apartment complex’s visitor parking lot. Petrie sued the apartment complex and its owners (collectively, Gallery), alleging that it knew or shown have known about the high crime rate on its premises and in the surrounding area yet failed to use ordinary care to make the complex safe. The trial court concluded that Gallery owed no duty to Petrie. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that there was evidence that Gallery knew or should have known of a foreseeable and unreasonable risk of harm. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the court of appeals failed to properly consider whether the risk of harm was unreasonable. The Court further rendered judgment in Gallery’s favor because Petrie failed to argue or offer any evidence of the burden that preventing such a crime would impose on Gallery. View "UDR Texas Properties, L.P. v. Petrie" on Justia Law

Wade Brady sued LeaAnne Klentzman and the West Fort Bend Star (collectively, the media defendants) for libel and libel per se, arguing that a newspaper article portrayed him as “unruly and intoxicated” when he interacted with a state trooper. The jury found that some statements in Klentzman’s article were defamatory, that some of the statements were not substantially true, and that Klentzman acted with malice. The jury awarded damages against the media defendants for mental anguish and damage to Wade’s reputation and exemplary damages against Klentzman and the Star. The trial court rendered judgment on the verdict. The court of appeals reversed and remanded for a new trial, concluding (1) the jury charge improperly placed the burden of proving truth on the media defendants; (2) to recover exemplary damages, Wade had to show that the media defendants acted with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth; and (3) legally sufficient evidence existed that Wade suffered actual damages. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court of appeals properly remanded the case for a new trial so the jury could evaluate the evidence under the proper standard. View "Brady v. Klentzman" on Justia Law

A subcontractor sued a premises owner for personal injuries the subcontractor suffered while working with a contractor on the owner’s premises. A jury found that the owner, contractor, and subcontractor all negligently caused the accident. The jury assigned seventy-five percent of the responsibility to the owner, fifteen percent to the contractor, and ten percent to the subcontractor. The owner appealed. The Supreme Court reversed and rendered judgment in favor of the premises owner, holding that no evidence supported either of the theories on which the jury found the premises owner liable. Remanded. View "4Front Engineered Solutions, Inc. v. Rosales" on Justia Law

James Wetherbe, a Texas Tech professor and associate dean, filed a defamation action against Debra Laverie, a colleague, after Wetherbe was passed over for promotion. Laverie filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the Tort Claims Act required Wetherbe to name Texas Tech as a defendant and dismiss her from the lawsuit. Wetherbe responded that because Laverie did not act in the scope of her employment when she defamed him she was not entitled to dismissal. The trial court denied Laverie’s motion. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed and rendered judgment dismissing Laverie from the underlying suit, holding that Laverie was acting in the scope of her employment when she made the allegedly defamatory statements. View "Laverie v. Wetherbe" on Justia Law

Norma Heredia filed a personal injury claim against Wal-Mart Stores, Texas. The trial court granted Wal-Mart’s motion for no-evidence summary judgment. Heredia then filed a notice of appeal and an affidavit of indigence in the trial court. No challenge to Heredia’s affidavit was filed within the following ten days, but the court of appeals issued a sua sponte order allowing any interested parties to file a challenge to Heredia’s affidavit in the ten days following the date of that order. Three days later, the court reporter filed a challenge to Heredia’s affidavit. Pursuant to the court of appeals’ order, the trial court set a hearing to determine Heredia’s indigence. Heredia filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court conditionally granted the writ and directed the court of appeals to vacate its order and to allow Heredia to proceed with her appeal without payment of costs, holding that the procedural rules do not permit any out-of-time challenges, regardless of the reason for delay. View "In re Norma Heredia" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, the parents of Matthew Sanchez, who died from a drug overdose, filed a wrongful death suit against the City of Dallas, alleging that a condition of the City’s telephone system proximately caused their son’s death by preventing him from receiving potentially life-saving medical care. The City filed a Tex. R. Civ. P. 91a motion to dismiss asserting governmental immunity from suit and arguing that the allegations in the complaint did not invoke a waiver of governmental immunity under the Texas Tort Claims Act. The trial court denied the City’s motion to dismiss as to the allegation that the City’s 9-1-1 phone system failed or malfunctioned. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that governmental immunity was not waived under the Tort Claims Act and dismissal was required because the pleadings did not establish that a defect in the 9-1-1 telephone system was a proximate cause of Sanchez’s death. View "City of Dallas v. Sanchez" on Justia Law

A merchant vessel registered in Mexico and sailing with a Mexican crew was ferrying workers, all citizens of Mexico, from a Mexican port to an offshore drilling site when it sank off the coast of Mexico. One worker drowned. The deceased worker’s beneficiaries and ninety-one of the surviving workers sued the operator of the ship, a Mexican entity; the owner of the ship, a Mexican entity; and the operator’s marketing affiliate, a Texas entity created after the incident, for damages in Cameron County, Texas. Defendants moved to dismiss based on forum non conveniens. The trial court denied the motion. Defendants sought mandamus relief from the court of appeals. The court denied relief, ruling that Defendants’ lack of diligence in pursuing relief had prejudiced Plaintiffs. The Supreme Court conditionally granted mandamus relief and directed the trial court to issue an order dismissing the case for forum non conveniens, holding that the factors in Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code 71.051(b) predominated in favor of dismissal. View "In re Oceanografia, S.A. de C.V." on Justia Law

When Plaintiffs were sued, they hired Attorneys to represent them. During trial, the trial judge erred, and the error required a costly appeal to correct. Plaintiffs later sued Attorney for legal malpractice claiming that the court’s error would have been immaterial and a favorable judgment would have been rendered if Attorneys had presented additional evidence and arguments. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Attorneys, concluding that the trial court’s error was the sole cause of Plaintiffs’ injury because the Attorneys pursued a winning strategy and did not contribute to the judicial error. The court of appeals reversed without addressing whether judicial error can constitute a superseding cause that negates proximate cause. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that, as a matter of law, any unrelated negligence by the trial attorneys was too attenuated from the remedial appellate attorney fees to be a proximate cause of those expenses. View "Stanfield v. Neubaum" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against Crosstex North Texas Pipeline, LP asserting that Crosstex had both intentionally and negligently created a nuisance. Specifically, Plaintiffs alleged that a compressor station built by Crosstex had greatly diminished the value of their ranch and ruined their financial investment, as well as their ability to use and enjoy their land. A jury found that Crosstex had “intentionally and unreasonably” created a nuisance as to Plaintiffs’ ranch, that the nuisance was permanent, and that the nuisance caused the ranch’s fair market value to decline by over $2 million. The trial court rendered judgment on the jury’s verdict. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the evidence was not factually sufficient to support the jury’s finding of a negligently created nuisance. The Supreme Court clarified the law and affirmed, holding holding (1) the term “nuisance” refers to a type of legal injury involving interference with the use and enjoyment of real property but does not describe a cause of action; and (2) a defendant can be liable for intentionally or negligently causing a condition that constitutes a nuisance, and neither claim requires a separate finding that the defendant unreasonably used its property when creating a nuisance. View "Crosstex N. Texas Pipeline, LP v. Gardiner" on Justia Law

After Randall Seger died while working on a hydraulic-lift drilling rig when it suddenly collapsed, his parents obtained a judgment against the drilling company. The drilling company then assigned its rights against the insurers to the parents, and the parents brought a Stowers action against the insurers. See G.A. Stowers Furniture Co. v. Am. Indem. Co. The court held that, because the evidence is legally insufficient to support a jury verdict to the contrary, Randall was a leased-in worker as a matter of law. In this case, plaintiffs' claimed loss was excluded from coverage under the commercial general liability (CGL) policy and the Stowers action fails as a result. The court did not reach the damages issue addressed by the court of appeals. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment, which reversed the trial court's judgment and rendered judgment that plaintiffs take nothing, but on different grounds. View "Seger v. Yorkshire Ins." on Justia Law