Texas Injury Lawyers Blog

Published on: June 12, 2016

Can a Texas Defendant Require You to Submit to a Medical Examination?

In the Texas Supreme Court case of In Re HEB Grocery Store Company, the Court considered whether a trial court had properly denied the defendant’s motion to conduct a physical examination of a personal injury victim.

The case arose when the plaintiff sued a grocery store for negligence, claiming he’d tripped and fallen over a metal plate in front of the grocery car corral in its parking lot, suffering injuries to his face, neck, shoulder, arm, and knee. He underwent medical care, including spinal surgeries. While the lawsuit was pending, he was also involved in an accident at a Sam’s Club. He sued the Sam’s Club, claiming that an employee had dropped a roll of artificial turf on his head, causing him to suffer head and neck injuries.

The grocery store retained as a medical expert an orthopedic surgeon. The surgeon didn’t examine the plaintiff but did provide a report with opinions about the plaintiff’s injuries, relying on a medical records review. It was his opinion that the plaintiff’s spinal injuries were the result of a preexisting spinal condition and that nothing in the plaintiff’s MRI a month after the fall suggested he had an acute injury.

Continue reading →

Published on: June 12, 2016

The Discretionary Powers Exception in Texas

By Carabin Shaw

In City of Austin v. Frame, a Texas Court of Appeals considered a lawsuit filed against the City by four plaintiffs under the Texas Tort Claims Act and recreational use statute after an accident. The case arose when a man drove his car off the street, jumped a curb, and drove onto a hike-and-bike trail next to the road. The vehicle hit two pedestrians, one of whom died of his injuries. The plaintiffs sued the City for negligence, gross negligence, premises liability, special defect, and breach of duty under the recreational use statute.

The plaintiffs claimed the City failed to safely construct the trail, knew of prior instances of vehicles traveling over the curb onto the trail in the same place, and failed to correct or warn about this dangerous condition. They also claimed the City’s policies required it to take corrective action about known safety hazards and that it should have constructed a guardrail in response.

The City argued it was immune from suit because the Texas Tort Claims Act didn’t waive governmental immunity for discretionary decisions about how a road should be designed and whether specific safety features should be installed. It also claimed that the plaintiff couldn’t amend the complaint to cure the problems with it because the facts pled in the complaint only related to discretionary decisions. The plaintiffs argued that there was no immunity because the City’s failure to address the known safety hazard was a failure to implement its own policy, and it was not a design decision or initial policy for which it could be immune.

Continue reading →

Published on: April 10, 2016

Sufficiency of Evidence to Recover Lost Tuition After Texas Car Accident

By Carabin Shaw

In Rizzuti v. Smith, an appellate court considered whether there was enough evidence to support the jury’s awards related to a plaintiff’s medical expenses and loss of a college tuition payment. The case arose when the defendant (Rizzuti) backed his car into the plaintiff (Smith), who was behind the car. Both the defendant and the plaintiff were with others who had been drinking at nearby bars. Somebody in Smith’s group observed the defendant back over the plaintiff and then move forward and run over the plaintiff another two times.

The plaintiff suffered many injuries and had to go through twelve surgeries. The biggest injury was from his dislocated left knee. At the time of his injuries, the plaintiff was going to junior college. He later claimed that his injuries stopped him from finishing the coursework for his spring semester, and that he lost $1500-$2000 in tuition because of the accident.

At trial, a jury determined that both the defendant and the plaintiff were negligent. However, it assigned 82% of the responsibility for the accident on the defendant and only 18% on the plaintiff. It also found the defendant’s actions were grossly negligent. It awarded the plaintiff $6000 for mental anguish and past pain, $3000 for future mental anguish and pain, $1500 for the loss of his tuition, and $112, 753.60 for his medical expenses, including the past surgeries. It determined that he hadn’t proved future medical expenses or impairment, and no punitive damages were awarded. The trial court’s final judgment was for $102,957.95.

Continue reading →

Published on: April 10, 2016

Injuries Sustained Due to Property of a Texas University

By Carabin Shaw

In The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Munoz, the plaintiff was hurt by heavy equipment on which he worked near property owned by the university. Employed by Universal Controls, Inc. (UCI), he was an electrician. UCI subcontracted to retrofit an air-handling unit (a type of air conditioner in offices). UCI needed to install new computer panels and sensors. UCI had to run wiring for the system, including making decisions about where the wire would be run. Its employees were responsible to do the work. The university didn’t supply materials, but it owned the complex, including the towers to which air conditioning would be supplied.

The second tower was a 14-story building. The unit at issue was a pulley-driven motor system. Although it was supposed to have a safety cover, it was missing. The plaintiff started working on the unit in October and worked there for seven or eight days without a problem. He noticed the missing safety cover before the date of his injury, October 9.

On that day, he saw that UCI employees were there, but no university employees were there. He noticed that another employee had left wire in the walkway near an uncovered spinning wheel and realized it was dangerous. However, he simply walked around the wire instead of tying it on multiple occasions. One time, his leg got caught in the wire, which was entangled in the spinning wheel, and he was jerked as the wire pulled by the spinning wheel lifted him and twisted his knee. His knee and back were hurt, and he had to have two surgeries, both of which were unsuccessful.

Continue reading →

Published on: April 10, 2016

Suing the Government for Texas Road Construction Accidents

By Carabin Shaw

In Texas Department of Transportation v. Brown, the plaintiff was driving on Hwy 82, in an area that was a construction zone, when she crashed into an unmarked machine parked in the right-hand lane. Later, she would claim that the barricade drums that were put between the two lanes didn’t show which lane was closed.

She sued the contractors for the Texas Department of Transportation (Department) and others for negligence. The defendants designated the Department as the responsible third party. She then amended her suit to include the Department as a defendant. She argued that the Department’s governmental immunity was waived under the Texas Tort Claims Act (TTCA). The TTCA required pre-suit notice. Her petition didn’t claim to provide pre-suit notice, only that she had generally met all the prerequisites to file suit.

The Department filed a verified answer and claimed governmental immunity, alleging she hadn’t provided notice of her claim as required under Section 101.101(a) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. The director of the relevant section of the Department swore that notice hadn’t been received. Later, the Department filed a plea to the jurisdiction, arguing there was no subject matter jurisdiction.

Continue reading →

Published on: March 20, 2016

Texas Workers’ Compensation as Exclusive Remedy for Work Injury

By Carabin Shaw

In Palmer v. Newtron Beaumont, the plaintiff appealed on the basis that the trial court shouldn’t have granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff was an employee of Motiva who sued the defendant (Newtron Beaumont) when a Newtron employee stepped on him at the Motiva plant while getting down from scaffolding. The plaintiff argued that it was Newtron’s negligence that caused his injuries.

Newtron filed a summary judgment motion, claiming that it and Motiva had entered into an agreement whereby Motiva was to provide workers’ compensation insurance and employer’s liability insurance for Newtron and its employees when they worked for Motiva. The Motiva policy covered all of Motiva’s employees, including the plaintiff. Newtron argued that Texas law made Newtron Motiva’s deemed employee, and therefore it was the plaintiff’s fellow employee under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act. This would make it immune from the plaintiff’s effort to recover workers’ compensation benefits.

In its summary judgment motion, the defendant argued that Motiva kept the right to implement and maintain its workers’ compensation and employer’s liability insurance. The motion further argued that the plaintiff was acting in the course and scope of his employment with Motiva at the time of the injury, and his exclusive remedy under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act barred him from filing a civil suit for work-related injuries against any of his fellow employees (such as Newtron).

Continue reading →

Published on: March 20, 2016

Single-Vehicle Accident in Texas

By Carabin Shaw

In Homman v. Kugler, a husband and wife involved in a single-vehicle accident sued a retail outlet and its owner, who was also the man who loaded their trailer. The plaintiff worked for David’s Patio, and on the day of the accident, he was driving a pickup and trailer for the defendant retail outlet to pick up angle irons. The owner of the retail outlet used a forklift to put the loan on the trailer. The plaintiff used only a single strap to secure the load and then drove back to his company.

The plaintiff started to get onto the freeway, but the trailer began swaying, pushed forward, and lifted the back wheels of the pickup. The pickup spun, balancing on two wheels on its side, and then the trailer broke off and rolled away. The pickup sat back down on its four wheels. The plaintiff wasn’t cited for the accident and did not see a doctor right away.

He went back home feeling sore. The next day, when he woke, he felt sore from his upper buttocks to his skull. He went to the doctor and was diagnosed with herniated and bulging discs. The doctor prescribed physical therapy and epidural steroid injections. He was also told he needed fusion surgery on his lower back, but he hadn’t gotten this surgery at the time of trial.

Continue reading →

Published on: March 20, 2016

Slip and Fall in Texas County Jail

By Carabin Shaw

In Jefferson County v. Akins, the plaintiff sued a county for personal injuries arising from her slip and fall in the hallway of the county jail. She was an employee of the jail, supervising inmates in the kitchen area in the middle of the night, and the fall occurred when she was leaving the jail after the end of her shift. Water often dripped in the hallway from trays being delivered from the kitchens.

Before falling, the plaintiff noticed an employee supervising a crew that was mopping the hallway. She didn’t know what she’d fallen on, but after she fell, she noticed her back was wet and the floor was shiny. Her supervisor witnessed the fall, and was of the opinion that she had fallen because the crew had just mopped the area where the plaintiff was injured.

The supervisor of the cleaning crew testified that there was a sign noting the floor was slippery on the mop bucket used by her crew. She also testified that she would dry-mop areas after mopping because she was concerned about safety. She also contradicted the plaintiff’s testimony about where she was when the plaintiff fell. She testified that she was standing about a foot from the accident and her crew hadn’t mopped the location of the fall. However, she had scolded the crew immediately after the fall, because she believed in that moment that they had left the area mopped and wet. Later she noticed drops of water on the floor in the door of the dining room and inside the dining area. It was her opinion that the trays from the kitchen carts had dripped and caused the plaintiff’s fall.

Continue reading →

Published on: March 20, 2016

Unavoidable Motor Vehicle Accidents in Texas

By Carabin Shaw

In Gomez v. Cooke, a Texas appellate court considered a case that arose when a couple was on a cross-country road trip, traveling through Houston. The husband was driving the pickup, which was towing a camper.

Before the accident, the wife was looking at her GPS and instructing her husband to take a right turn. The truck moved toward the left, and the wife looked over to see her husband’s head had dropped and he was totally unresponsive. She tried to move his foot off the gas, but it was too late, and the truck and camper crashed into six vehicles, including a car driven by the plaintiff.

When they arrived, the emergency medical services personnel noticed that the left side of the husband’s face was drooping, and that side of his body was weak. At the hospital, the doctors determined the husband had suffered a stroke, causing him to lose consciousness.

Continue reading →

Published on: February 17, 2016

Suing a Texas Governmental Entity for a Defective Guardrail

By Carabin Shaw

In Texas Department of Transportation v. Kirk, the plaintiff sued several entities, including the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT), to recover compensation for injuries suffered when he lost consciousness and control of his vehicle on Hwy. 277. Before crashing the car, he started to suffer dizziness and blurred vision. When he lost consciousness, his car left the road and hit a guardrail, some of which came through the passenger side, causing injuries.

Later, the plaintiff claimed that the end terminal of the guardrail had an ET-Plus design, which was developed and sold by various defendants, although not TxDOT. It had been designed so that it would absorb collision impact. The plaintiff also claimed other parties had altered the design so that it didn’t function in the same way.

TxDOT filed a motion for summary judgment and to dismiss, arguing it had sovereign immunity. The motion was denied, but the trial judge gave no reason why. TxDOT appealed.

Continue reading →

Texas Injury Lawyer Blog