Texas Injury Lawyer Blog

In Texas, governmental immunity protects municipalities and other political subdivisions of the State from civil liability unless they have waived their immunity to suit. Governmental immunity often extends to employees of municipalities as well. In cases in which a party asserts they are protected from liability via governmental immunity, the courts will weigh several factors to determine whether the assertion is true, as illustrated in Rivera v. City of Houston No. 01-19-00629-CV, a case arising out of a collision involving a police vehicle. If you were injured in a crash with a municipal employee, you could be owed damages, and you should contact a Texas car accident lawyer to discuss your rights.

The Facts of the Case

It is reported that a police officer that worked for the defendant municipality was driving outside of her regular patrol area to pick up her partner when she heard an announcement of an emergency call regarding a suspect with a weapon. Although she was not assigned to the call, she decided to respond to it after going to the station to pick up her partner and engaged her emergency equipment.

As the police officer approached an intersection, she slowed down but did not stop. She was typing a message to the dispatcher, and she entered the intersection and did not observe whether the light was red or green. She subsequently struck the plaintiff’s vehicle. Continue Reading

Discovery is an essential component of car accident cases; without it, parties would not be able to adequately develop their claims or defenses. Not all information and documentation is discoverable, however, and even if evidence is subject to discovery, it may be protected by one or more privileges. Relevance and privilege in the context of discovery was the topic of a recent  Texas opinion issued in a case arising out of a collision, In re Central Oregon Truck Co., Inc., — S.W.3d —- (2022), in which the court ultimately held that information regarding the injured party’s medical billing was relevant. If you were hurt in a car crash, it is important to understand your rights and obligations, and you should meet with a Texas car accident lawyer as soon as possible.

Facts of the Case

It is alleged that the plaintiff was injured in a collision in which she was rear-ended by the defendant driver. She subsequently filed a lawsuit against the driver and because the driver was working at the time of the accident, his employer. During the course of discovery, the defendants subpoenaed the plaintiff’s medical providers to obtain her medical records and billing information. The plaintiff moved to quash the subpoenas, arguing that the information sought was irrelevant. The court ultimately denied her motion.

Discoverability of Information in Car Accident Cases

Pursuant to Texas law, a party is permitted to attain discovery pertaining to any matter that is relevant to the issues presented in the underlying action, as long as it is not privileged, regardless of whether it relates to the defense or claim of the party seeking the information or another party in the case. All discovery is subject to a proportionality standard that requires a case by case assessment of judicial considerations. Continue Reading

Generally, people seeking compensation for injuries sustained in a car accident will name the driver of one of the vehicles involved in the collision as a defendant. Other parties may be deemed liable as well, however, if the judge or jury finds that their actions contributed to the plaintiff’s harm. Recently, in Elephant Insurance Company, LLC v. Lorraine Kenyon (No. 20-0366), a case of first impression, the court addressed the issue of whether an automobile insurer could be deemed liable for a fatal collision that occurred while its insured was taking photographs of another crash per its directive. If you suffered losses due to a collision caused by someone else’s negligence, it is prudent to speak to a Texas car accident lawyer to determine what claims you may be able to pursue.

The Facts of the Case

It is alleged that the insured was involved in a single-car accident. The insured’s spouse arrived at the scene of the collision and, per the defendant automobile insurer’s instruction, began taking photographs of the car and roadway. While doing so, he was struck by another motorist and suffered fatal injuries. The insured filed a wrongful death and survival action against the motorist and against the defendant insurer. As to the defendant insurer, she alleged that its negligence caused the fatal crash. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that it owed no duty of care to the insured with respect to the collision. The trial court granted the defendant insurer’s motion, and the insured appealed.

An Insurer’s Liability for Collisions Under Texas Law

On appeal, the appellate court affirmed the trial court ruling, finding that the defendant insurer did not breach any duty owed to the insured or her husband and, therefore, could not be held liable for the insured’s losses. Specifically, the appellate court explained that the defendant insurer’s duty of good faith and fair dealing did not require it to process the first collision without requesting that the insured take photographs or to issue a safety warning to the insured along with the request. Continue Reading

Typically, people believe that rear-end collisions are caused by the carelessness of the second driver. While that is frequently the case, the occurrence of a rear-end collision does not establish negligence as a matter of law; rather, the plaintiff must prove each element of negligence to recover damages. This was demonstrated in Roberts v. Staples (No. 06-21-00076-CV), a case in which the Court of Appeals of Texas, Texarkana, denied the plaintiff’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict after the trial court entered a take-nothing judgment against her. If you sustained injuries in a rear-end collision, it is advisable to meet with a Texas car accident lawyer to discuss your potential claims.

The Facts of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiff was stopped at a red light when the defendant rear-ended her. She subsequently filed a lawsuit against the defendant, alleging he was negligent. The defendant admitted fault at trial, but the jury found that the defendant’s negligence if any, did not cause the collision. As such, the trial court entered a take-nothing judgment against the plaintiff. The plaintiff moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and a new trial, arguing that the jury ruled against the weight of the evidence. The appellate court disagreed and affirmed the trial court judgments.

Establishing Liability Following a Rear-End Collision

In Texas, the elements of negligence are a legal duty, a breach of the duty, and damages that are proximately brought about by the breach. In the subject case, the trial court charged the jury with the definitions of ordinary care, negligence, and proximate cause. Thus, the appellate court was tasked with evaluating the evidence offered at trial in light of those definitions. Continue Reading

Vehicles owned by government units are not immune to collisions. Under Texas law, however, government units enjoy substantial protection from liability for harm that arises out of such collisions. While government units are not entirely immune to liability, an injured party must comply with the notice requirements established by the  Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, and if they do not, they may waive the right to recover damages. A recent ruling issued in Oswalt v. Hale County, No. 07-21-00050-CV, a car arising out of a collision with a county-owned vehicle, highlighted the dangers of failing to provide proper notice. If you were injured in an accident with a vehicle owned by a government entity, it is smart to speak to a trusted Texas car accident lawyer as soon as possible.

Facts of the Case

It is alleged that the plaintiff was driving a truck with a trailer attached on an access road to an interstate. A sheriff working for the defendant county drove his vehicle up to a stop sign at an intersection and then proceeded onto the access road, striking the plaintiff’s trailer. The plaintiff did not indicate that he was injured at the scene of the accident, but the trailer was damaged.

Reportedly, the plaintiff subsequently filed an action against the county seeking compensation for personal injury and property damage. The defendant filed a plea to the jurisdiction on the grounds that the plaintiff did not provide it with timely formal notice as required under the Texas Tort Claims Act (TTCA). The court granted the plea as to the personal injury claims but not as to the property damage claims. The parties both appealed. Continue Reading

Ride-sharing drivers are prevalent throughout Texas, and many people take an Uber or Lyft instead of driving. People who drive for ride-sharing companies are typically independent contractors rather than employees; as such, if they negligently cause collisions, the ride-sharing company will most likely not be deemed vicariously liable. In a recent case, Freyer v. Lyft, Inc., 05-20-00310-CV, a Texas court affirmed the independent contractor status of drivers who drive on behalf of ride-sharing companies, soundly rejecting the plaintiff’s attempt to impose liability on the company. If you were hurt in a collision caused by a ride-sharing driver, it is prudent to confer with a knowledgeable Texas car accident lawyer to discuss your rights.

The Facts of the Case

Reportedly, the plaintiff was riding as a passenger in a car operated by a driver working for the defendant ride-sharing company. Shortly after the ride began, the driver stated she did not feel well. She then fell in and out of consciousness and began to drive erratically, scraping the concrete barrier on the left side of the road. The car continued to roll, and the plaintiff opened the door to exit the vehicle. The driver then regained consciousness and accelerated, causing the plaintiff’s foot to be dragged along the road for two hundred feet. The plaintiff sustained permanent injuries, including the loss of her right big toe and part of her right foot.

Allegedly, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the driver and the ride-sharing company. She settled her claims against the driver. Her claims against the defendant ride-sharing company included negligent entrustment, negligent supervision, and respondeat superior arising out of an employee/employer relationship. The defendant ride-sharing company filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that it could not be deemed liable for the driver’s negligence, as she was an independent contractor, not an employee. The trial court granted the motion, and the plaintiff appealed. Continue Reading

Many employees are required to drive to and from certain locations as part of their job duties. If an employee subsequently causes a collision while driving for work purposes, both the employee and their employer may be deemed liable for any harm that ensues. Employers will only be held accountable for the negligent acts of their employees in certain circumstances; however, as discussed in Smith et. al. v. USI Industrial Services, Inc. (NUMBER 13-20-00004-CV). If you sustained injuries in a car accident caused by a person acting on behalf of their employer, it is in your best interest to speak to a skilled Texas car accident attorney regarding your potential claims.

The Subject Collision

It is reported that the defendant employed two boilermakers and directed them to travel to and from Borger and Rio Grande Valley for the job. In mid-April of 2016, the defendant dismissed them from its employ due to a reduction in force. Two days later, they began their trip home. During the trip, the boilermaker who was driving lost control of his truck and collided with a car driven by the decedent.

Allegedly, both the decedent and the boilermaker who was driving died in the accident. The plaintiff then filed a lawsuit seeking damages for the decedent’s death and ultimately asserted non-employee mission liability and respondeat superior claims against the defendant. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing the boilermakers were not acting in the scope of their employment at the time of the crash. The trial court granted the motion, and the plaintiff appealed. Continue Reading