Articles Posted in Car Accidents

Experts agree that seat belts help save lives. And it is common knowledge that drivers and passengers should always wear their seat belts regardless of the length of the trip. However, what is less known is that the seat belt defense may allow a defendant in a Texas car accident case to use an accident victim’s failure to wear a seat belt against them.

The seat belt defense is really an interpretation of the rules of evidence, specifically, whether evidence of the plaintiff’s failure to wear a seat belt is admissible. For the most part, only relevant evidence is admissible. Most states do not allow defendants to use the seat belt defense, because they consider such evidence irrelevant. Specifically, these jurisdictions determined that whether a person is wearing a seat belt has nothing to do with whether the defendant negligently caused the accident.

Of course, defendants naturally want to introduce seat belt non-use evidence to argue that the plaintiff is responsible for their injuries, and that they should not be on the hook for damages that the plaintiff could have prevented. And, in a 2015 case, for the first time, the Texas Supreme Court held that seat belt non-use evidence was admissible, reversing a long line of decisions.

A Texas appeals court recently considered a wrongful death case in which a Texas man was killed in an accident on the job. The man was involved in a single-vehicle accident involving a 1987 Freightliner, and died shortly after the accident occurred. The man was acting within the course and scope of his employment at the time of the accident. The employer was a nonsubscriber under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, and the plaintiff, the man’s husband, filed suit against the defendant for negligence and gross negligence. The employer argued that it was not liable because the man was intoxicated at the time of the accident. After a hearing, a trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the employer.

Under the Texas summary judgment standard, the party moving for summary judgment has the burden to prove that there is no genuine issue of material fact on at least one essential issue and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. If the moving party succeeds in satisfying its burden, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to show that an issue or evidence should preclude summary judgment. In addition, all motions for summary judgment must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.

On appeal, the plaintiff argued that summary judgment should not have been granted because there were genuine issues of material fact concerning whether the man was legally intoxicated when the accident occurred. In support of its defense, the employer submitted an autopsy report and a toxicology report. The autopsy report showed that there was amphetamine, methamphetamine, and fentanyl in the man’s blood when he died. A doctor’s report stated that the amount found reflected a “voluntary introduction” of the drugs.

Texas drivers have a duty to drive carefully, as well as to respond to dangerous situations in a reasonable and thoughtful manner. This means that Texas personal injury plaintiffs may be able to recover compensation if another party fails to operate a vehicle with due care or act reasonably, even when that party is responding to a dangerous situation.

Under Texas law, the sudden emergency doctrine (or the imminent peril doctrine) concerns the response of a defendant to a sudden and unexpected emergency. A defendant may be protected under the doctrine only if the defendant can prove the following. First, that there was a sudden and unexpected emergency, and that someone was in actual or apparent danger of immediate injury. Second, that the defendant did not cause the sudden and unexpected emergency. Third, that the defendant acted as a reasonably careful person would have acted under the circumstances, even if another course of action would have been safer. The doctrine is applicable if a driver who was acting with reasonable care was suddenly and unexpectedly confronted by an emergency situation that the defendant did not cause. Essentially, it protects a person who acts in response to a sudden emergency, and it later becomes clear that another course of action would have avoided an injury.

However, the doctrine applies only in cases where an unexpected physical danger comes about that is so sudden that it deprives the driver of the ability to use reasonable judgment. In addition, a party cannot be protected by the doctrine if that party’s negligence caused or contributed to the dangerous situation.

Earlier this month, six El Salvadoran citizens were killed and five others seriously injured in a Texas car accident. According to a local news report covering the tragic accident, the single-vehicle crash occurred when an SUV crashed into a roadside ditch near Robstown. Apparently, shortly before the accident, the vehicle was being pursued by police. However, law enforcement gave up on the pursuit due to the wet conditions. The SUV was traveling at estimated speeds of up to 50 miles per hour before the crash.

The authorities have not yet released several important details surrounding the fatal accident. For example, it is unclear what the basis of the traffic stop was and whether it justified a high-speed chase. Additionally, it is unknown how long after the authorities called off the chase the crash occurred. What is known is that the people involved in the accident were undocumented.

Because police gave up on the pursuit, they were not immediately aware of the accident, which was only reported after passers-by noticed two injured men walking along the side of the road. Once the crash was reported, emergency medical crews responded to the scene, removing several from the wreckage.

While any Texas car accident lawsuit has the potential to become very complicated, as a general rule the more parties that are involved in an accident, the more complex a subsequent personal injury case will be. In Texas, courts apply several doctrines to determine which accident victims are entitled to compensation for their injuries and the amount of compensation each at-fault party owes the plaintiff.

Under Texas’ comparative negligence law, an accident victim who is less than 51% at fault for causing the accident that resulted in their injuries can pursue claims for compensation against the other parties involved in the crash. After the case, the jury will assign each party, including the plaintiff, a percentage of fault. Under Section 33.013 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, each defendant is then liable only for their percentage of fault. Thus, a plaintiff may be required to recover several judgments to obtain full compensation for their injuries.

If, however, a defendant is more than 50% at fault, the defendant is considered jointly and severally liable for the plaintiff’s injuries. This means that, while a defendant who is more than 50% at fault is technically only responsible for their percentage of fault, at the plaintiff’s option, the defendant can be required to pay the full damages amount to the plaintiff. Then, the defendant would be able to pursue a claim against those defendants with a lesser percentage of fault. When joint-and-several liability applies, the burden of recovering on smaller judgments is shifted onto the defendant who is primarily responsible for the plaintiff’s injuries.

Recently, a federal appellate court issued a written opinion in a Texas car accident case illustrating the importance of expert testimony. The case presented the court with the opportunity to discuss whether a subsequent report issued by the plaintiff’s expert was admissible. Ultimately, the court concluded that the report was properly excluded, and affirmed summary judgment in favor of the defendant manufacturer.

The Facts of the Case

According to the court’s opinion, the plaintiff was killed in a single-vehicle car accident after his Jeep Wrangler swerved off the road and into a concrete pillar. There was no known cause for the accident, and investigators noticed that the grass under the Jeep was charred, as though there had been a fire. A few days after the crash, the manufacturer issued a recall of the transmission oil controller (TOC). Evidently, a defective TOC could result in the undercarriage of a vehicle catching fire.

The plaintiff’s surviving loved ones filed a Texas product liability lawsuit against the manufacturer. In support of their claim, they consulted with an expert. However, after reviewing the data, the expert could not definitively state that the recall defect caused the fire. After learning of the expert’s opinion, the plaintiffs moved for additional discovery related to Jeep fires that were caused by other defects. After reviewing this data, the plaintiff’s expert submitted an amended report, concluding that a defective TOC caused the fire.

Continue reading →