Car Accidents

Published on: January 28, 2016

Compelling Discovery from a Manufacturer in a Texas Product Liability Case

In re Michelin North America, Inc. is a recent product liability case. The case arose when a woman driving a 2013 Ford Explorer was hit by Robert Coleman’s Ford F250 pickup. The pickup crossed the center line when its left front tire failed, and it crashed into the Explorer, killing the woman. The driver of the pickup and his passengers were seriously injured.

The woman’s heir filed a wrongful death lawsuit, alleging negligence and strict product liability against Michelin and a negligence claim against the driver of the pickup. The pickup driver filed a petition to intervene in the wrongful death lawsuit against Michelin.

The tire at issue was manufactured at a Michelin plant in 2011. The pickup driver claimed the tread peeled off the left front tire, and it lost air quickly because of tread separation, resulting in the pickup driver losing control. Before filing suit, the pickup driver’s attorney asked that specified evidence be preserved. The pickup driver’s attorney made several discovery requests to Michelin, which objected and claimed trade secret privilege, among other things. The court granted the pickup driver’s motion to compel access. The order allowed videotaping, limited to an hour.

Continue reading →

Published on: January 28, 2016

Negligent Entrustment in Texas Car Crashes

By Carabin Shaw

In Dao v. Garcia Ex. Rel. Salinas, a man borrowed the defendant’s car to pick up his friend at a restaurant. The defendant and the man were former roommates, friends, and business associates. On the day that the man borrowed the defendant’s car, she’d had dinner with the man and fallen asleep at his apartment. While she was sleeping, he took her keys and drove her car to get his friend at the restaurant. While at the restaurant, he drank part of a glass of wine, one of several he’d consumed that day.

As the man and the friend left the restaurant in the car, they started to go the wrong way on a one-way street. The man then tried to drive across the street to go into a driveway. At that point, Rojelio Salinas came down the street in his moped, and the defendant crashed into him. Salinas died from his injuries. His estate sued the man, the defendant, the restaurant, and another party for negligence.

Included in the causes of action was a claim against the defendant for negligent entrustment. The jury found that the defendant, the man, and the restaurant were negligent, awarding $737,000 in damages. The jury apportioned damages with 10% to the defendant, 5% to the restaurant, and 85% to the man. The court ordered that the defendant and the man were jointly and severally liable for $700,150. The defendant filed a motion for new trial, which was denied on the grounds that it was against the operation of law.

Continue reading →

Published on: October 25, 2015

When is a Medical Exam Warranted in A Texas Car Accident Case?

By Carabin Shaw

In In re Ruben Gonzalez, a cross-complainant filed a petition for a writ of mandamus to overturn the trial court’s order that required him to undergo a medical examination in a personal injury suit. The case arose in 2013 when the cross-complainant was involved in a multi-vehicle crash. A truck driver turned in front of his car, and the cross-complainant veered and crashed into a third vehicle driven by the plaintiff. The plaintiff sued the cross-complainant, the truck driver, the truck driver’s employer, and another. The cross-complainant then cross-claimed against the truck driver and his employer, seeking damages for his own injuries.

One of the cross-complainant’s treating physicians recommended that he have a surgery to remove four cervical discs and fuse his vertebrae. The truck driver and his employer deposed the doctor. The truck driver and employer also requested a medical exam of the cross-complainant, but the trial court denied this.

The cross-complainant got a second opinion about the way he should be treated. The second opinion physician had not yet been disclosed as a potential witness. The second opinion doctor recommended that the cross-complainant undergo a single-disc replacement surgery. His lawyer did disclose to the opposing attorneys that his client would have surgery, but he didn’t identify the second opinion doctor as the one who would perform it.

Continue reading →

Published on: September 21, 2015

Texas City Sued Due to Police Officer Use of Patrol Car

By Carabin Shaw

In City of Socorro v. Hernandez, a Texas appellate court considered a case in which the plaintiffs were involved in a car crash. Their car was rendered inoperable, and the electrical system died in the street. The hazard lights weren’t working. The police responded. The officer didn’t park his car behind the stalled car but instead parked on a side street, activating his overhead flashing lights. The officer ordered the two to push the stalled vehicle out of the road. A woman driving towards the accident was distracted by the police car’s lights and crashed into the police officer and the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs sued on the grounds that their injuries and damages were proximately caused by the city’s negligence in failing to use warning lights in a way that would have warned other motorists about the dangerous condition in the road, placing the car in a side street and thereby distracting motorists from the dangerous condition, failing to take reasonable steps to make the road safe, and directing the plaintiff to push the car out of the road in spite of its inoperable condition.

The City filed a plea to the jurisdiction, which was denied by the trial court. The City appealed the denial. The court reviewed whether the allegations established that the city’s use of the police car proximately caused the injuries, whether the injuries were proximately caused by the use of the disabled car, and whether the dangerous condition created by the disabled car was a special defect.

Continue reading →

Published on: September 21, 2015

Sufficient Evidence for Damages in Texas Car Accident Case

By Carabin Shaw

In Dabbs v. Calderon, a Texas Court of Appeals considered a case in which the defendant ran a red light and crashed into two cars. One of the passengers in one of the struck cars was pinned inside the car. When he was freed by emergency personnel, they found his leg was badly hurt. Doctors diagnosed him with a fracture in his shin bone and gave him a pain medication prescription, stabilized his leg, and discharged him. At home, his family had to cook for him and give him baths.

Three weeks later, his leg was covered in fracture blisters, and he had to stay at the hospital for five days. Six months later, he had to have a surgery, and he went to physical therapy three days a week for several months until April 2012. Later he testified that his right leg atrophied from non-use, and when he did try to use it, his foot would swell and turn blue.

The accident victim sued the woman who crashed into the two cars, claiming she negligently ran a red light because she was distracted. The woman claimed she couldn’t stop because her brakes failed.

Continue reading →

Published on: August 9, 2015

Elections of Remedies when Suing a Governmental Employee in Texas

By Carabin Shaw

If you are suing a governmental employee for personal injuries but are not sure if he or she was acting in an official capacity at the time of injury, you should be aware of election of remedies under the Texas Tort Claims Act (TTCA). In Molina v. Alvarado, a Texas plaintiff sued a city for negligence and negligence per se, on the grounds that its employee Alvarado was driving a city vehicle under the influence of alcohol when he hit the plaintiff. The plaintiff originally alleged that the employee was operating the city’s vehicle in the course and scope of employment with the city, and the city had negligently operated the vehicle through its employee. The original petition didn’t describe the employee’s job duties or state that he was performing a task assigned to him by the city.

The city claimed immunity from the suit, arguing that no statute waived its immunity. The trial court denied the plaintiff’s special exceptions that requested the city specify the facts and law underpinning its immunity defense. The plaintiff filed an amended petition naming the employee as another defendant.

The amended petition alleged the employee operated the city vehicle in the course and scope of employment with the city. It reasserted that the city operated the vehicle in a negligent manner. The plaintiff also claimed that, if the employee wasn’t furthering the city’s governmental affairs while in the vehicle, he was liable in his individual capacity for negligent operation of the vehicle.

Continue reading →

Published on: August 9, 2015

Motorcyclist Unable to Recover from City in Texas

By Carabin Shaw

In Northcutt v. City of Hearne, the appellate court considered governmental immunity in the context of a motorcycle accident resulting in the death of a motorcyclist. The motorcyclist was traveling northbound on Highway 79. A police officer had hidden on a driveway with his lights off to set up a speed trap. As the motorcyclist approached, the officer pulled his car out of the driveway to pursue a different vehicle. The motorcyclist was forced to swerve to avoid contact.

The motorcycle flipped, and he was thrown onto the highway. The defendant failed to swerve and hit him, resulting in the motorcyclist’s death. The decedent’s personal representative sued the City for negligence, seeking wrongful death and survival damages. She alleged that the city had waived its governmental immunity under the Tort Claims Act.

The City denied the allegations and put up a defense based on governmental immunity. It also filed a plea to the jurisdiction, claiming there were insufficient facts to support the claim it had waived its immunity. The trial court granted the plea. The plaintiff appealed.

Continue reading →

Published on: March 16, 2015

Texas Supreme Court Reconsiders Ban on Seat-Belt Evidence

By Carabin Shaw

Over the past 40 years, evidence of a plaintiff’s failure to use a seat belt was inadmissible in Texas car accident lawsuits because, even though it could exacerbate the plaintiff’s injuries, it could not, in and of itself, cause a car accident. This rule was a way of protecting plaintiffs from the all-or-nothing effect of the contributory negligence doctrine. Under the contributory negligence doctrine, a plaintiff who was 1% or more at fault for an accident could not recover any compensation from the defendant. The rule originated with case law and was codified, and then the statute was repealed in 2003. In spite of the legislative repeal of the rule, the rule making seat-belt evidence inadmissible still stood, since the case law was still in effect.

In the recent, important ruling in Nabors Well Services, Ltd. v. Romero, the Texas Supreme Court reconsidered the rule banning seat-belt evidence. The case arose when a transport truck collided with a Chevrolet Suburban carrying eight passengers, including three adults and five children who were part of two families. When the transport truck slowed, the driver of the Suburban pulled into the opposite traffic lane and tried to pass. While the Suburban passed, the truck made a left turn and hit the Suburban, which rolled several times and killed an adult passenger and hurt the rest of the people in the car. There was conflicting evidence about who was belted into their seats. All of the occupants were ejected except the driver and one of the children.

The two families sued the transport truck company and its driver. At trial, the truck company tried to introduce expert testimony from a biomechanical engineer that seven out of the eight Suburban occupants were unbelted and that this failure caused their injuries and the fatality. The truck company also wanted to introduce a citation issued to the driver for failing to properly restrain child passengers.

Continue reading →

Published on: January 26, 2015

Can Your Chiropractor Testify in Your Texas Personal Injury Case?

By Carabin Shaw

Recently, in Moreno v. Ingram a Texas appellate court considered the question of whether a chiropractor can testify on the necessity of a plaintiff’s non-chiropractic medical treatment. The plaintiff sued the defendant for negligence, based on injuries and vehicle damage arising out of an auto accident. Before trial, she filed affidavits about her need for medical care. The court ruled these established the cost of the treatment was reasonable, but not that the treatment was necessary. The affidavits were admitted, but the references to necessity were redacted.

At trial, the plaintiff offered her chiropractor’s testimony. The chiropractor (Dr. Starry) testified about the necessity of her treatment by a pain management physician. This included epidural steroid injections and other non-chiropractic treatment. Digital animations were shown as demonstrative exhibits.

The plaintiff and defendant both testified about the crash, but their testimony contradicted each other. The plaintiff testified she had signaled to turn left from a parking lot. She also testified that the defendant was behind her but drove around on the left, swiped, and hit her. The defendant argued she was driving on the boulevard and wasn’t in the parking lot, and that the plaintiff pulled out of the driveway and caused the crash. Continue reading →

Published on: January 14, 2014

Teen Who Killed Four in a Drunk Driving Accident May Face Jail Time After All

By Carabin Shaw

Many in Texas and across the United States were horrified to learn the outcome of a drunk driving case in which four people were killed. Ethan Couch, 16 years old, pleaded guilty to intoxication manslaughter and intoxication assault in Tarrant County court. In return Judge Jean Boyd sentenced Couch to 10 years probation. Prosecutors criticized the judge for so easily accepting the “affluenza” defense, and for giving a lighter sentence than many would receive for such a crime. However, Couch may end up yet serving time if the district attorney has his way.

The tragic case began back in June 2013, when Couch and several of his friends robbed a Wal-Mart store before they got into Couch’s Ford pickup truck and drove at 89 miles per hour down the Burleson-Retta road in southern Tarrant County. Couch, the driver, had a blood alcohol level of more than three times the legal drinking limit when he plowed into four people stopped by the side of the road. They included a mother and daughter who had gone to help a stranded friend, the friend, and a youth pastor who had stopped to help. Couch’s collision also left one of his friends critically injured.

In court, Couch’s attorneys argued that Couch suffered from “affluenza”: he had grown up rich and had received everything he wanted, making him incapable of knowing right from wrong. Couch elected to have Judge Boyd sentence him rather than face a jury. He stood to receive up to 20 years in prison, but instead, Judge Boyd ordered that he be released to his parents and be placed at Newport Academy treatment facility, which cost $450,000 per year, which his parents would be required to pay. Couch would remain for at least three months. He has already been twice cited for driving at 89 miles per hour while under the influence, and pleaded no contest. Two of his requirements were to take an alcohol awareness class and do 12 hours of community service.

Continue reading →