Articles Posted in Car Accidents

In a recent dram shop case before a Texas court of appeals, the appeals court considered whether the bar could be held liable for over-serving a customer who was later involved in a car crash.

The Facts

According to the court’s opinion, the plaintiff was driving his motorcycle one night when a car crashed into him. The vehicle failed to yield and turned left in front of the plaintiff, who was unable to stop. The car’s driver ran over the plaintiff, who had fallen from his motorcycle, and then backed up, running over him again, before fleeing the scene.

Before the crash, the driver of the car had been drinking for several hours at different bars with a friend. They went to one bar, then to defendant’s bar, then to a third bar, then to a fourth bar where they were refused service, and then back to the defendant’s bar, where they continued drinking. The driver eventually left the bar, and struck the plaintiff on his way home. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant’s bar provided, sold, or served alcohol to the driver of the car when he was obviously intoxicated “to the extent that he presented a clear danger to [him]self and others.”

Continue reading →

• The legal doctrine of negligence generally governs most injury claims. Thus, understanding what a plaintiff must to prove is an important part of any Texas injury case. Negligence means that a party acted or failed to act in a way that an ordinarily prudent person would have acted in those or similar circumstances. This is referred to as the standard of care.

The standard of care required in a given scenario depends on the facts of the case. Some considerations might include the dangerousness of the activity involved and the relationship between the parties. Therefore, a plaintiff must show that the defendant did something a prudent person exercising ordinary care would not have done (or failed to do something an ordinarily prudent person would have done) in those same circumstances.

In Texas, to prove a negligence claim, a plaintiff must prove 1) the defendant owed the plaintiff a legal duty; 2) the defendant breached that duty; and 3) the breach proximately caused the plaintiff damages. That means that in a Texas car accident case, a plaintiff has to prove that another person failed to meet the standard of care, which caused the plaintiff’s injuries. In some cases, the standard of care has been defined. For example, negligence per se is a concept where a certain standard of care has already been established. In that instance, a statute states what a reasonably prudent person would have done, and then the jury is asked whether the defendant violated the statute or regulation.

Continue reading →

In some cases, employers can be held responsible for their employees’ actions, including Texas car accidents involving employees. In a recent decision, a Texas appeals court considered the employer’s responsibility after its employee was involved in a car accident. The plaintiff was in a car accident with a moving company’s employee, which resulted in the plaintiff’s injuries. The employee made a left turn across a four-lane highway as she was leaving a parking lot. The plaintiff was unable to avoid the employee’s car and drove into the left side of the employee’s car. The employee was cited for failing to yield the right of way.The plaintiff sued the moving company, alleging it was vicariously liable for the employee’s negligence. The plaintiff also alleged that the moving company failed to properly supervise its employee, negligently hired the employee, and negligently retained the employee, among other claims. The moving company argued the case should be dismissed because the employee was not acting in the course and scope of her employment with the company at the time of the collision.

Vicarious Liability

Vicarious liability refers to the liability of an employer or another responsible party for the actions of another person. Under one type of vicarious liability, known as respondeat superior, an employer may be held liable for the negligent acts of its employee if the employee’s actions fall within the course and scope of the employee’s employment. According to Texas law, an employee’s acts must be within the scope of the employee’s general authority, in furtherance of the employer’s business, and taken to accomplish a task for which the employee was hired. In addition, generally an employee is not in the course and scope of employment while driving to and from work.

Continue reading →

A recent Texas truck accident decision arose out of a pickup truck accident. An equipment company had employed a man as a driver. While driving in the course and scope of his employment in November 2012, the man got into an accident. At trial, the jury received conflicting evidence about what happened to cause the accident and the plaintiff’s injuries.

The plaintiff was driving east in a pickup one morning. When he came to an intersection with a yellow light, he slowed down, and the light turned red. The intersection was east of a school zone, where the speed limit was 30 mph. After he stopped, the plaintiff saw the equipment company employee driving toward him from behind in another pickup. The plaintiff estimated the other driver was moving at 45 mph when he struck the plaintiff’s truck from behind.

The impact was hard, according to the plaintiff. The plaintiff experienced pain in his neck, shoulders, and back, and he testified that the force pulled his seat loose from the hinges fixing it in place. He also presented deposition testimony from the other driver, in which the other driver admitted his fault and testified that he believed the plaintiff was hurt. He also presented the employer’s representative’s deposition testimony. The deponent testified that the employee had written out a statement in which he admitted that in his opinion, he was at fault for the accident, and the deponent testified that the employer agreed.

Continue reading →

In a recent Texas car accident case, the plaintiff appealed a summary judgment ruling that she take nothing in her claim. The case arose several years ago when the defendant rear-ended the plaintiff’s car on the MoPac expressway. In a week, she sued the defendant, claiming negligence and negligence per se based on his drunk driving.

When the lawsuit started, she was asking for personal injury damages. However, the defendant’s auto insurance carrier settled those claims. The property damage claims didn’t settle, and she amended her pleadings to get recovery of those damages. She’d bought her car about three weeks before the accident. It was purchased through an installment sales contract. The plaintiff made a down payment and agreed to satisfy the remaining balance through monthly payments.

The contract granted a security interest in the car to secure the plaintiff’s debt. The car was a total loss after the accident. The damages were the fair market value of the car immediately before the injury at the place where the injury happened. This is subject to a credit or offset in the amount of the car’s salvage value if the owner keeps the car.

Continue reading →

In a recent Texas auto accident decision, a woman appealed from a take nothing judgment after a jury trial in her personal injury lawsuit against a defendant, claiming injuries when the defendant’s vehicle hit hers from behind. The jury decided that both parties had been negligent. They believed that the plaintiff had caused 51% of the accident, and the defendant had caused 49%. Accordingly, a take nothing judgment was rendered. She appealed.

The plaintiff claimed that the lower court had made a mistake in not admitting the defendant’s deposition testimony. She argued that if a party doesn’t appear at trial but appears to be deposed, the deposition transcript must be admitted.

The appellate court explained that whether evidence is admitted is within the lower court’s discretion. If a party introduces some recorded testimony, the other party asks questions. An adverse party can ask about any other subject. The adverse party is allowed to bring forward any other recording that is needed to explain or allow the jury to understand the section that the opponent introduced. The purpose of the rule is to protect against a distortion that could be created if part of the evidence is introduced.

Continue reading →