10 Best
Google verifed reviews
Texas Trial Lawyers Association
BBB
AVVO
Published on:

By

Back in July of this year, three teenagers were involved in a serious Texas car accident after the driver lost control of the vehicle. After losing control of the Nissan Altima, the car veered off the road and into the median, where it slammed head-on into trees that cut the vehicle in half. While the driver survived with relatively minor injuries, both passengers died from the injuries they sustained in the accident.While investigating the fatal accident, police believed the driver to have been under the influence of alcohol. That was confirmed, and the teenage driver was arrested and charged with two counts of intoxication manslaughter. According to a recent news report, authorities have subsequently arrested a 29-year-old gas-station clerk who they believe may have sold the teenage driver fortified wine on the day of the fatal accident. The clerk denies he sold the minor alcohol, claiming that he always checks customers’ identification prior to selling them alcohol.

Dram Shop and Social Host Liability

While the driver involved in this tragic accident may have obtained alcohol from a gas station, more often than not under-age drinkers get alcohol from a friend’s parents or from a bar or restaurant. In some cases, the bartender may be a friend or acquaintance who serves the minor, knowing they are under-age.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Earlier this month, the federal circuit court overseeing the federal district courts in Texas issued an opinion in a personal injury case discussing several pertinent issues for Texas product liability plaintiffs. The case required the court to determine if a jury’s $3.4 million verdict in favor of the plaintiff was supported by sufficient evidence. Ultimately, the court concluded that the plaintiff’s evidence did support the jury’s verdict, and thus the verdict was affirmed on appeal.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff, through his wife, filed a product liability lawsuit against his employer as well as the manufacturer of a crane that the plaintiff was operating at the time of his accident. According to the court’s opinion, the plaintiff suffered a serious injury when the counterweights attached to a crane he was operating slid into the operator’s cab, knocking the plaintiff out of the cab and sending him head-first onto the concrete eight feet below.

The plaintiff claimed that the crane manufacturer was liable under a “failure to warn” theory. Essentially, the plaintiff’s argument was that the manufacturer’s included warnings failed to fully inform users of the risks involved with the crane tipping over. Additionally, the plaintiff argued that alternative warnings would have better informed him and may have prevented the accident.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In a recent appellate case, a Texas motorcycle accident plaintiff challenged the trial court’s admission of evidence related to causation and prior extraneous offenses. The motorcyclist was driving in the right lane on a service road when an 18-wheeler truck swung into the middle lane to make a right turn. He tried to pass on the right, and a truck cut him off to make a turn. He steered into a curb, flew over the handlebars, and was seriously injured under the tires of the truck.

He was speeding when he tried to pass. The truck company, but not the driver, admitted the right turn was wider than necessary. The lower court refused to permit testimony from the only eyewitness that the motorcyclist and the truck driver were equally at fault. An officer who investigated the accident determined that the motorcyclist had tried to pass the truck unsafely. Both sides presented expert testimony. After a two-week trial, the jury determined there was more than $7 million in damages. It found that the truck driver was 25% negligent and that the motorcyclist was 75% negligent. A take-nothing judgment was entered.

The motorcyclist appealed. He argued it was improper to admit the officer’s testimony that he caused the crash by passing unsafely on the right as well as presenting evidence of his prior bad acts. The company and the truck driver argued he waived those complaints because he discussed the evidence in his opening statement and also introduced it at trial. Specifically, the plaintiff’s attorney had commented that he was no Boy Scout and had evaded arrest, among other things, and that the police officer didn’t talk to the only eyewitness in stating that the motorcyclist passed unsafely to the right.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Common Links to More and More Trucking Accidents 

With a 20% increase in trucking accidents over the last two decades according to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMSCA), there are more and more trucking accidents occurring across Texas.

And when these types of accidents occur typically the result is much more severe, as the large truck or semi is often 20 times the size and weight of most other vehicles on the road.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Earlier this month, the state’s high court issued a written opinion in a Texas workplace injury case requiring the court to determine whether the trial court was acting within its discretion when it precluded video evidence without actually viewing the video. Ultimately, the court concluded that “except in rare circumstances,” a court must observe a video before determining if it should be admitted into evidence.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was a senior mechanic on an offshore drilling rig. One day while at work, the plaintiff injured his back. The plaintiff underwent two back surgeries within 13 months, but the pain remained. He was never able to return to work. The plaintiff’s physician determined the plaintiff was “totally disabled.”

The plaintiff filed a workplace injury claim under the Jones Act, claiming that his employer was negligent and that the drilling rig was not seaworthy. After the case was filed, the plaintiff underwent a functional capacity evaluation (FCE) to determine his physical abilities. The results of the FCE indicated that the plaintiff’s responses were consistent with someone who was exaggerating their symptoms.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In a Texas medical malpractice case, the lower court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claim without giving them a 30-day extension to fix deficiencies in their expert reports. The case arose when a man was admitted to a medical center and was diagnosed with the narrowing of a carotid artery and the occlusion of a coronary artery. He had coronary surgery. After the surgery, he suffered from a lack of oxygen to the brain. The family decided to take him off ventilator support, and he died the next day.

His wife sued the medical center, a health system foundation, and a doctor under the wrongful death and survival statutes. She claimed medical negligence and gross negligence against the defendant, as well as respondeat superior against the entities.

The plaintiff claimed the entities were liable because the nurses didn’t institute several interventions to fix the critically low oxygen saturations and that they should be liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior because their negligence had caused the man’s death. They served two expert reports on time under Texas Civil Practices & Remedies Code section 74.351.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

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 →

Published on:

By

Texas medical malpractice claims must meet certain requirements in order to continue in court. In a recent case, the Supreme Court of Texas issued a decision concerning a plaintiff’s requirement to submit an expert report in a medical malpractice case.In that case, a woman had cataract surgery on her left eye. Before the surgery began, a nurse anesthetist administered anesthesia by injecting anesthetic into the space behind the globe of her eye. The woman alleged that the nurse negligently inserted the needle into her left optic nerve, causing her permanent nerve damage and vision loss.

The woman sued the nurse and his employer. In support of her claim, she submitted an expert report, which she later amended. The expert stated that he believed that the woman suffered an injury to the left optic nerve as a result of the nurse’s administration of anesthesia. The expert believed that the nurse was negligent in part by damaging the woman’s left optic nerve by sticking it with the needle.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In a recent case, the state’s Supreme Court ruled against a plaintiff in a Texas workplace injury case. The plaintiff was employed by an energy company, where his employer and another energy company were drilling for oil. The incident that resulted in this lawsuit occurred when an employee of the other energy company asked him to clean up a spill of fracking liquid; however, the employee did not provide him with any protective gear. Evidently, the liquid contained toxic chemicals that came into contact with the plaintiff’s body. The plaintiff’s skin was burned when it came into contact with the liquid, and within hours, he was in severe pain. About four months later, he was diagnosed with squamous cell cancer.

Procedural Posture

About two years after being diagnosed with cancer, the plaintiff sued several entities but did not include the energy company that employed the employee who instructed him to clean up the spill. However, shortly thereafter, the plaintiff amended his petition to include the company, alleging that it was negligent in allowing the liquid to leak and asking him to clean it up without protective measures. He argued that the company was liable for his cancer, which was a new illness that developed from his exposure.

The energy company argued that they were entitled to summary judgment because the claim was filed past the statute of limitations. The plaintiff argued that the statute of limitations was tolled because he could not have known about their negligence until after he was diagnosed with cancer. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the company, and the court of appeals then reversed the decision. The defendant then appealed to the Texas Supreme Court.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court of Texas issued a written opinion in a Texas car accident case involving the question of whether the defendant employer could be held liable for the allegedly negligent actions of an employee. Ultimately, the court concluded that the lower court improperly granted the defendant employer’s motion for summary judgment, finding that a genuine issue of fact remained as to whether the employer was vicariously liable. Thus, the court reversed the lower court’s judgment and remanded the case.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff worked for a company that drilled oil and gas wells. On this particular job, the plaintiff and the rest of the crew were put up in company housing about 30 miles away from the drilling site. A contract between the plaintiff’s employer and the owner of the land where the wells were to be drilled stated that the supervising crew member would be compensated for driving the crew members to and from the drilling site.

Thus, for this particular job, the plaintiff’s crew supervisor provided the plaintiff and the rest of the crew with transportation to the drill site. One day, the supervisor was involved in a car accident that killed two members of the crew and injured the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed a personal injury lawsuit against the employer, arguing that it was vicariously liable for the supervisor’s negligence in causing the accident.

Continue reading →

Contact Information
875 E Ashby Pl #1100
San Antonio, TX 78212
Phone: 1 800-862-1260Fax: 210-222-1480
Map and Directions
Main Office – San Antonio, TX
Visits with Attorneys in any and all branch offices are by appointment only.

* Amount represents the total gross recoveries by Carabin Shaw Attorneys, Of Counsel, and Trial Attorneys on the behalf of and for our injured, damaged, or wrongfully killed clients.

Auto Accident Attorneys Carabin Shaw - San Antonio Abogado de Lesion Personal Carabin Shaw

We serve the following localities: Aransas County including Rockport; Bee County including Beeville; Bexar County including Converse and San Antonio; Cameron County including Brownsville and Harlingen; El Paso County including El Paso and Socorro; Guadalupe County including Schertz and Seguin; Harris County including Houston, Katy, and Pasadena; Hidalgo County including Edinburg and McAllen; Jefferson County including Beaumont; Nueces County including Corpus Christi; Travis County including Austin; and Webb County including Laredo. View More

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2025, Carabin Shaw
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design