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

By

In some Texas personal injury cases, it is difficult to know which theory of recovery to pursue. In Pilgrim’s Pride Corporation v. Mansfield, a manufacturer appealed from a judgment in a product liability case that on the surface might have looked like a slip and fall. A jury had found that the product, which was a bag of frozen chicken, had a manufacturing defect when it was sold to a retail grocer.

While shopping at the retail grocer, a customer slipped and fell on liquid that leaked through the defective bag of chicken. The store manager helped her get up, and she stated she thought she was okay and wouldn’t need an ambulance. The manager filled out an accident report on the store form, noting that the customer had slipped on blood that came through a leak in the bag of chicken while she was pushing her grocery cart.

At trial. the store manager testified that he noticed there was a trail of liquid spots behind the plaintiff’s cart just after the accident, and that he’d inspected the bag as well. He took the bag to the meat department, noticing that the bag was open, not just torn or cut. The meat department manager and his assistant also noticed that the corner of the bag was unsealed. The manager testified there was an opening at the bag’s seam, a defective seal, which allowed the liquid to leak.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

If you are suing a governmental employee for personal injuries but are not sure if he or she was acting in an official capacity at the time of injury, you should be aware of election of remedies under the Texas Tort Claims Act (TTCA). In Molina v. Alvarado, a Texas plaintiff sued a city for negligence and negligence per se, on the grounds that its employee Alvarado was driving a city vehicle under the influence of alcohol when he hit the plaintiff. The plaintiff originally alleged that the employee was operating the city’s vehicle in the course and scope of employment with the city, and the city had negligently operated the vehicle through its employee. The original petition didn’t describe the employee’s job duties or state that he was performing a task assigned to him by the city.

The city claimed immunity from the suit, arguing that no statute waived its immunity. The trial court denied the plaintiff’s special exceptions that requested the city specify the facts and law underpinning its immunity defense. The plaintiff filed an amended petition naming the employee as another defendant.

The amended petition alleged the employee operated the city vehicle in the course and scope of employment with the city. It reasserted that the city operated the vehicle in a negligent manner. The plaintiff also claimed that, if the employee wasn’t furthering the city’s governmental affairs while in the vehicle, he was liable in his individual capacity for negligent operation of the vehicle.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In the recent appellate case of United Parcel Service, Inc. v. Rankin, the plaintiff and his family sued UPS and one of its drivers. The case arose when the driver parked his UPS vehicle in front of a house to make a delivery on his normal route. He intended to park briefly and left the vehicle partly in a lane of traffic with the hazard lights on. The view was unobstructed for 2,000 feet, but the vehicle was brown and stopped under a tree with brown leaves against the backdrop of a brown hill.

The plaintiff was traveling home by bike and rode into the back of the parked UPS vehicle and suffered severe injuries. He didn’t remember what happened, and the driver testified he didn’t see the accident. When the police came, the hazard lights of the UPS vehicle were still flashing. The plaintiff told the police he didn’t see the vehicle when he rode into it.

At trial, a police officer testified that the plaintiff had a duty to look for vehicles, and there was enough space for him to ride around the vehicle. The police officer didn’t charge the driver with illegal parking.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In Sinclair v. Estate of Ramirez, the defendant appealed in connection with a verdict entered in favor of a decedent’s estate and his wife in a wrongful death case. The case arose when the decedent finished his welding job and drank 14-18 beers with his coworkers. He and two coworkers went to a nude cabaret, which was 50 miles away, and operated by the defendant. They drank through the evening inside the club. The decedent bought four private dances in a VIP room. At some point, the decedent got aggressive with a dancer. The dancer believed that he intended to rape her and escaped.

The dancer told the defendant. The decedent left the VIP room and asked for a refund. A witness testified that he wanted a refund because he thought he would get more because he paid for dances. The defendant refused to give the refund. The decedent threw a metal box at him. The defendant got a whip from the other side of the bar.

The decedent pushed through some doors, breaking them. To stop him from getting to an area where the defendant stored cash, the defendant ran after him. The decedent charged the defendant, who hit him with the whip. The club DJ pulled the decedent back, and the decedent fell to the floor, stunned. A club patron asked if the defendant wanted the decedent removed. The defendant said yes but later claimed he didn’t tell him to drag the decedent from the club.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In Nexion Health at Garland, Inc. v. Townsend, a 69-year-old Texas woman was admitted to a rehabilitation center after a back surgery. The center assessed her as a high fall risk with good potential for rehabilitation, and two people were required to assist with transfers. She was found to have deep vein thrombosis in her lower extremities. Bed rest and anticoagulants were ordered. Testing showed some issues with her coagulation, but no further tests were ordered. The woman was not able to balance at one point and sat down on the floor. There were no signs of fracture, but later she was found to have a hematomal bump and suffered from labored breathing.

The woman had to be transferred to a medical center. She was diagnosed with anemia, weakness, tachycardia, and an altered mental status. She was suffering from a hematoma that was secondary to anticoagulation. The ICU admitted her, and she was placed on ventilation and received several blood transfusions, among other things.

She died there. Her estate filed a health care liability suit against the decedent’s treating physician and the rehabilitation center. The estate offered an expert report to support its claims. The rehabilitation center filed objections and moved to dismiss the claim. The objections were overruled and the motion denied.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In Maldonado v. Sumeer Homes, the plaintiff appealed from three summary judgments in a personal injury action. The case arose from injuries the plaintiff suffered while working as a sheetrock installer on stilts during Sumeer Homes’ construction of a home. He tripped and fell on a stack of sheetrock. The plaintiff was working for Arturo Galvan, who’d been hired by a drywall subcontractor, who was in turn working for Sumeer Homes. The sheetrock was delivered and stacked by Moises Aguilar.

After the accident, the plaintiff sued the builders and Arturo Galvan for negligence and gross negligence. He alleged that the sheetrock had been placed negligently and that the defendants failed to warn of the danger. He also alleged that he was told to work on stilts, even though the sheetrock was negligently placed on the ground, and that all the defendants were responsible for supervising and keeping safe the workers on the job.

The builders moved for summary judgment. They challenged the breach of duty and proximate cause aspects of the plaintiff’s claims. They also argued that he had no evidence that they violated a statute for his negligence per se claim, among other things, and all three motions were granted. The plaintiff appealed.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

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:

By

In University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston v. Cheatham, the appellate court considered the dismissal of a plaintiff’s health care liability claim based on immunity. The plaintiff had received a partial left heart bypass surgery by two employee doctors at the Health Science Center in 2008. Nurses helped doctors perform the procedure.

After the procedure, the plaintiff was X-rayed. The X-ray showed something metallic embedded within the plaintiff’s chest. He was taken back to the operator room, and the metallic object was a surgical needle. The plaintiff sued the doctors, alleging that they negligently left the needle in his chest. The doctors moved to dismiss on the grounds that they were government employees. The lower court granted the motion.

The plaintiff then filed an amended complaint, adding the Health Science Center as a defendant. The Health Science Center argued it was also immune. It claimed that the plaintiff had failed to give formal or actual notice as required by the Texas Tort Claims Act. It also filed evidence to support its plea to the jurisdiction. The plaintiff didn’t contest the evidence as inadmissible. The trial court denied the plea, and the defendant appealed.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Diamond Offshore Services Limited v. Williams is a Jones Act case that arose when the plaintiff injured his back while trying to fix machinery on an offshore oil rig operated by a Texas defendant in Egypt. The plaintiff was a mechanic who had worked for the defendant two different times and in different capacities for about a decade.

One afternoon, before he was scheduled to come back to the U.S., a driller told him that the elevators had failed and he needed to repair them. He worked on the elevators for 30-40 minutes. He bent at the waist to scoot the elevators, which weighed hundreds of pounds, into his work area. While working, he felt a sharp lower back pain. When he was done, he saw a doctor who told him to rest. The next day, he felt back discomfort when bending in his bed.

The man’s back continued to hurt when he got home, and the defendant referred him to an orthopedic surgeon whom he saw 10 days later. The orthopedic surgeon was independent but had seen patients off and on for the defendant. The man told the doctor that he hurt his back on a rig in 2006, two years before the incident at issue in this case, and that he had leg pain.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In Northcutt v. City of Hearne, the appellate court considered governmental immunity in the context of a motorcycle accident resulting in the death of a motorcyclist. The motorcyclist was traveling northbound on Highway 79. A police officer had hidden on a driveway with his lights off to set up a speed trap. As the motorcyclist approached, the officer pulled his car out of the driveway to pursue a different vehicle. The motorcyclist was forced to swerve to avoid contact.

The motorcycle flipped, and he was thrown onto the highway. The defendant failed to swerve and hit him, resulting in the motorcyclist’s death. The decedent’s personal representative sued the City for negligence, seeking wrongful death and survival damages. She alleged that the city had waived its governmental immunity under the Tort Claims Act.

The City denied the allegations and put up a defense based on governmental immunity. It also filed a plea to the jurisdiction, claiming there were insufficient facts to support the claim it had waived its immunity. The trial court granted the plea. The plaintiff appealed.

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