Personal Injury

Published on: August 9, 2015

Apportionment of Damages in Texas Construction Accident Lawsuits

In Joyce Steel Erection, Ltd. v. Bonner, a Texas appellate court considered a plaintiff who was pinned by an extremely heavy concrete tilt wall at a construction site. He suffered serious injuries and needed numerous expensive surgeries. He sued Joyce Steel Erection, Ltd., Caruthers Construction, and Self Concrete, Inc. Joyce didn’t settle, but the others did.

The plaintiff proceeded to trial against Joyce. The jury found $3.5 million in past damages and $3.5 million in future damages. It determined the defendant was 34% at fault, the plaintiff was 34% at fault, and the plaintiff’s employer was 33% at fault. The trial court entered judgment against Joyce after deducting for the other parties’ degree of fault and the settlement amounts.

The defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court should have excluded any damages that could be attributed to the plaintiff’s employer and for failing to follow a particular formula in calculating prejudgment interest.

Continue reading →

Published on: May 3, 2015

Proportionate Responsibility in Texas Work Accidents

By Carabin Shaw

In Hassan v. Rock, a plaintiff appealed from a judgment awarding him $212,136.64 in damages because he didn’t think the trial court should have reduced the award by his proportionate responsibility for the accident. The defendant had hired the plaintiff as a day laborer to clear brush out of an empty lot that belonged to the defendant’s friend. The defendant used a Bobcat loader, and the plaintiff crouched under the bucket. The bucket fell and hurt the plaintiff.

The plaintiff sued the defendant for negligence and gross negligence. The plaintiff objected to submitting proportionate responsibility questions to the jury, claiming that proportionate responsibility didn’t apply because the defendant was his employer but didn’t have workers’ compensation insurance as required under Tex. Lab. Code § 406.033(a)(1).

Nonetheless, the trial court submitted the questions related to the plaintiff’s responsibility for getting injured to the jury. The jury found that the defendant was 57% responsible and the plaintiff was 43% responsible. The plaintiff moved to disregard the jury’s answers to the proportionate responsibility questions. The trial court denied the motion and rendered a judgment reducing the plaintiff’s damages award by 43%. The plaintiff appealed.

Continue reading →

Published on: May 3, 2015

Negligent Supervision in Texas

By Carabin Shaw

In ExxonMOBIL Corporation v. Pagayon, the Texas Court of Appeals considered a case in which a man died after a fight between himself, his son, and an employee of the defendant at the defendant’s service station and convenience store. The defendant appealed a judgment in favor of the man’s wife, children, and estate on their wrongful death claims.

Pagayon and Cabulang were employees at a convenience station. They and Pagayon’s father had known each other before the employment. The son had conflicts with Cabulang at work and told both his manager and his father about them. The father phoned Cabulang, and they spoke heatedly about the conflict.

While working together, Cabulang cursed at Pagayon and in Pagayon’s view threatened him and his father. A coworker told the store manager, but the manager simply told the son to stay away from Cabulang. The father came to the store to pick up his son, and Cabulang started a fight with him, hitting him multiple times in the head and back. The father was taken to the hospital emergency room. He was moved to the ICU, and when they tried to wean him from the respirator, he was transferred to a long-term intensive care facility. The father died of respiratory failure, renal failure, and cardiac arrhythmia. The organ failure was caused by sepsis, which is an infection of the blood.

Continue reading →

Published on: December 11, 2014

When Can A Nonparty to A Texas Contract Be Compelled to Arbitrate a Personal Injury Case?

By Carabin Shaw

In ENGlobal U.S. Inc. v. Gatlin, a Texas appellate court was asked to decide whether a party to a contract with an arbitration clause could compel arbitration of a personal injury claim by a nonparty to the contract under the doctrine of “direct benefits estoppel.” The case arose from Phillips 66’s ownership and operation of an oil refinery. The operator of the refinery had contracted with Clean Harbor, an industrial service contractor, to clean oil storage tanks at the refinery.

An employee of the industrial service contractor was working as a hydroblaster at the refinery. While working, the lanyard on his safety harness got caught in the walkway, resulting in his fall and back injury.

When the accident happened, ENGlobal was a contractor that performed engineering for Phillips 66. Their relationship was governed by a master service agreement that included an arbitration provision. The employee had not signed this agreement, and he sued Phillips 66, ENGLobal, and another company in order to recover damages. He alleged negligent undertaking and premises liability. Continue reading →

Published on: December 11, 2014

Wrongful Death on the Job in Texas

By Carabin Shaw

Most of the time, the only recourse for survivors of a family member who dies because of a job are workers’ compensation benefits. However, when an employer shows gross negligence and an employee dies, the rules are different. In Garay v. GR Birdwell, the decedent’s surviving spouse and a representative of the decedent’s minor child sued the decedent’s employer for wrongful death after the decedent died while operating a trench roller. The accident happened while the decedent was working on his employer’s behalf at a construction site.

The employer was completing construction of a concrete wall, and the decedent operated a trench compactor on the employer’s behalf. He had worked for the employer for five years without any accidents. Usually, workers used a remote control with the trench roller, but according to another employee, the decedent said the remote control wasn’t working, even though he was able to use it earlier in the day. Therefore, the decedent manually operated the roller. Another employee had manually operated it the same way many times before.

While operating the roller, the decedent stood at a pinch point between the roller and the wall. The roller pinned him there. His coworkers tried to get him out, but he already had suffered serious injuries and died there. Continue reading →

Published on: October 2, 2014

Tractor-Trailer Crashes Into Texas College Bus

By Carabin Shaw

Recently, four people died and over a dozen were hurt in a Texas college bus crash. The accident happened when a tractor-trailer crossed a median in Oklahoma and crashed into the bus, which was transporting a women’s college softball team.

The team was going home after a scrimmage in Oklahoma. Three of the women died at the scene, and a fourth died at a hospital. The sides of the bus were heavily damaged. The National Transportation Safety Board sent investigators to the site, and both the bus driver and the tractor-trailer driver had to take toxicology tests.

A major accident like this can be devastating both physically and financially. When multiple people are harmed, it can be difficult to sort out who should pay and how much should be paid. In general, the party at fault must pay. If the tractor-trailer driver in the situation described above was 100% at fault, its insurer will have to sort out multiple claims against the same policy. It may be possible to reach a global settlement. However, a knowledgeable personal injury attorney will also look into other sources of recovery because a single insurance policy does not always cover all of the injuries, physical and emotional, that arise out of an accident involving multiple fatalities.

Continue reading →

Published on: September 16, 2014

Liability for Dog Bites in Texas

By Carabin Shaw

In Rodriguez v. Reed, a Texas plaintiff appealed the trial court’s summary judgment in favor of the defendant in a dog bite case. The case arose when the defendant was contacted at work that his burglar alarm was going off. He left his workplace and went home. He turned off the alarm and determined nobody had broken in. Meanwhile, police officers came to his house to respond to the alarm call. The call noted that the front glass had broken and that there were multiple dogs in the home.

The defendant’s car was in the driveway when Officer Espinoza and Officer Rodriguez (the plaintiff) arrived. One of the officers determined that the car was the defendant’s. There was no broken front glass. The officers went to the side of the house and came upon a fence with a locked gate. One officer went to the other side. Rodriguez jumped the gate and drew his weapon. At that moment, the defendant opened the back door and let the dogs out. When the plaintiff went around the corner, two dogs came into the yard, and one of them bit the plaintiff in the forearm. The plaintiff shot the dog, killing him. He jumped back over the fence.

The officer sued on the grounds of strict liability, claiming that the dog was known to have abnormally dangerous propensities and claiming that the defendant had negligently handled the dog. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment that was both traditional and a “no evidence summary judgment motion.” The latter claims there is no evidence to support an essential element of the other party’s claim. The plaintiff filed a response that included statements from the defendant’s neighbors and copies of police records about prior alarm calls to the defendant’s house.

Continue reading →

Published on: September 10, 2014

Personal Injuries at Texas Amusement Park

By Carabin Shaw

Recently, two Texas teens fell over 12 feet off a carnival ride and were injured. One of the two teenagers sustained serious injuries, and the other was left with minor injuries. Some witnesses commented that the ride operator had not shut the door to the ride. The International Association of Amusement Parks and Attractions found that over 1,200 people were injured on rides in 2011.

The amusement parks in Texas operate under the rules of the Texas Department of Insurance. Although there is significant oversight of parks, there are many similar accidents in Texas. The most likely reasons for amusement park injuries are mechanical failures such as lap belts or other restraints that don’t work, operator errors such as improperly maintaining the ride, and customer actions such as standing up or sitting improperly.

If you are hurt on an amusement park ride, you may suffer significant injuries. Three types of liability may apply if you are hurt or a loved one is killed on a ride: negligence, premises liability, and product liability. The most straightforward theory is negligence. In Texas, negligence is conduct that is less careful than what a reasonable person would do to avoid the risks of injury to another. For example, in the case described above, the operator could be found negligent for failing to close the door of the roller coaster ride. Operator error is one of the most common causes of injuries on roller coasters.

Continue reading →

Published on: August 25, 2014

Worker Injured on Former’s Employer’s Premises

By Carabin Shaw

A recent appellate case arose when a plaintiff was seriously burned after falling into a pool of hot water at the defendant’s chemical plant. The plant had multiple manufacturing units, but the facility was owned by DuPont. The unit where the plaintiff was injured was a formaldehyde production unit. Steam was a key part of the chemical production, and both steam and formaldehyde were supplied by D.B. Western, Inc., which built a formaldehyde manufacturing plant on land adjacent to the chemical plant. Steam pipes ran through the DuPont plant, and through them ran formaldehyde and steam from the adjacent plant.

There were steam traps designed by D.B. Western that DuPont and its outside company Spirex Sarco were responsible for maintaining. In 2004, DuPont sold the formaldehyde unit to Invista, and the employees of DuPont working there, including the plaintiff, became Invista employees. Invista had a contract with the same contracting company to purchase the steam and inspect the pipeline system. The plaintiff was burned by hot condensate that was in a pool under a pipeline.

The plaintiff sued DuPont, the owner of the plant, alleging negligence in the design, construction, and maintenance of the pipeline and steam traps, as well as premises liability. With regard to premises liability, the plaintiff claimed he was an invitee of DuPont. The plaintiff’s wife alleged loss of consortium.

Continue reading →

Published on: August 18, 2014

Death of a Minor in Go-Kart Accident in Texas

By Carabin Shaw

Recently, a 14-year-old girl passed away after a go-kart accident outside the Texas Motor Speedway, where she was participating in a go-kart race. The race was sponsored by the Sports Car Club of America. The girl’s go-kart kept going after she crossed the finish line and crashed through a low fence. Her helmet fell off when she crashed. Although she was airlifted to a hospital, she was pronounced dead afterward. It is not known whether the girl lost control because she suffered some sort of medical condition, or if the go-kart experienced a mechanical failure.

If the cause of an accident causing injury or death to a minor is mechanical failure, it may be appropriate to bring a wrongful death lawsuit. In Texas, a plaintiff bringing a product liability suit must prove the product was defective, the product reached the plaintiff without a substantial change in its condition, the defect made the product unreasonably dangerous, and the defect caused the plaintiff’s injuries and resulting damages.

When a product liability suit is brought, your attorney will need to retain experts to prove whether there was a design, manufacturing, or marketing defect and to testify about whether there was a safer alternative design. When there is a manufacturing defect claim, the plaintiff’s expert must be able to testify that the product deviated from its planned specifications. When there is a marketing defect, the plaintiff will have to show that the product lacked an adequate warning.

Continue reading →