by

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

by

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

by

It is well-established under Texas law that attorneys are permitted and expected to advocate zealously on behalf of their clients, but they are subject to limitations with regard to the arguments they can make to the jury. Thus, if an attorney makes an improper argument, the opposing party may have grounds for arguing that the court should vacate the verdict. Recently, a Texas court set forth an opinion in Press Energy Services, LLC and Christopher James Nissley v. Javier Bustillos Ruiz, (Texas State, 8th Court of Appeals), a truck accident case in which the defendant appealed the verdict, explaining the grounds for reversing a judgment on the basis of an improper jury argument. If you suffered injuries in a collision with a commercial truck, it is smart to confer with a trusted Texas truck accident attorney to determine what damages you may be owed.

Procedural History of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiff, who was driving a southbound truck, and the defendant, who was driving a northbound truck, collided in the southbound lane of traffic. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant and his employer, alleging that their gross negligence caused the collision and subsequent damages. The case proceeded to trial, and the jury awarded the plaintiff $3 million in compensatory damages and over $1 million in exemplary damages. The defendants moved for a new trial, but their motion was denied. They then appealed.

Improper Jury Arguments

The defendants set forth numerous arguments on appeal, including the assertion that the plaintiff’s counsel set forth improper arguments to the jury by referencing his client’s Mexican origin. Under Texas law, a party seeking reversal of a judgment based on an improper jury argument must show an error that was not provoked or invited and was preserved at trial by a proper objection, motion for mistrial, or motion to instruct. Continue Reading

by

It is not uncommon for people to lend their cars to other drivers. If a person borrowing a vehicle causes an accident, though, the owner of the car may be found liable for negligent entrustment. A plaintiff must prove each element of negligent entrustment to recover damages, including the defendant’s ownership of the vehicle in question, and if they do not, the claim will fail. As discussed in a recent Texas case,  Sauceda v. Quality Motors (No. 10-19-00422-CV), however, the person named on the certificate of title of a vehicle is not always the owner. If you were hurt in a collision caused by a person driving a borrowed car, it is advisable to speak with a skilled Texas car accident attorney to assess what claims you may be able to pursue.

The Facts of the Case

Reportedly, the defendant driver signed a contract with the defendant dealership that allowed her to take possession of the subject car. The contract stated, in part, that she could not sell the vehicle or leave it in someone else’s care without the defendant dealership’s express permission. It also included provisions regarding installment payments.

It is alleged that a month later, the defendant driver was involved in a head-on collision with the plaintiff. The plaintiff suffered critical injuries in the crash and subsequently filed a lawsuit asserting a negligence claim against the defendant driver and a negligent entrustment claim against the defendant dealership. The defendant dealership moved for summary judgment, and the court granted the motion, after which the plaintiff appealed. Continue Reading

by

Some jobs require people to travel on a regular basis, and it is not uncommon for a person who is driving to a location for work purposes to cause a collision. People hurt by parties traveling for work purposes will often allege that the parties’ employers should be held vicariously liable for the harm they cause. In Texas, employers will only be deemed responsible for harm caused by their employees in limited circumstances, though, as discussed in an opinion recently issued by a Texas court in Rios Pina v. Sun Loans, Inc. (No. 04-20-00336-CV). If you sustained injuries in a collision caused by a negligent driver, you should confer with a knowledgeable Texas car accident attorney to evaluate what compensation you may be owed.

The Subject Accident

Reportedly, the plaintiff suffered injuries in an accident in which a car driven by the defendant’s employee collided with her vehicle. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the driver and the defendant, asserting numerous claims, including vicarious liability. The plaintiff settled her claims against the driver, and the defendant moved for summary judgment on the remaining claims. With regard to the vicarious liability claim, the defendant argued it the driver was not operating within the scope and course of her employment at the time of the accident, and as such, the plaintiff’s claim failed. The trial court granted the motion, and the plaintiff appealed.

Establishing Vicarious Liability Under Texas Law

Under Texas law, an employer may be found vicariously liable for the negligent acts of its employee under the doctrine of respondeat superior. Pursuant to the doctrine, liability requires proof of tortious behavior by a tortfeasor, an agency relationship between the employer and the tortfeasor, and the commission of a tortious act while the tortfeasor was in the scope and course of the employer’s authority. Continue Reading

by

In cases arising out of car accidents, juries are typically tasked with determining not only liability but also damages. To support their claims and defenses, parties will often employ experts to testify on certain issues like what medical treatment and costs were reasonable and necessary. Thus, if a trial court issues an order precluding an expert from testifying, it may greatly impair a party’s case. Recently, the Supreme Court of Texas issued a ruling in In re Alexander Guevara and Jose Alfredo Guevara (05-19-01049-CV), describing the recourse available for a party who has been denied the right to present expert testimony. If you were hurt in a collision, it is advisable to speak to a skillful Texas car accident attorney about your potential claims.

History of the Case

It is reported that the parties were involved in a collision in which the plaintiff suffered bodily harm. Following the accident, the plaintiff sought treatment for his injuries. He subsequently filed a lawsuit against the defendant driver asserting negligence claims. Prior to trial, the plaintiff submitted an expert affidavit averring that his medical care was necessary and the cost of his care was reasonable. The defendant filed counter-affidavits challenging the necessity and reasonableness of the plaintiff’s medical expenses as set forth in his expert affidavits.

Allegedly, the plaintiff moved to strike the defendant’s expert affidavits and preclude his expert, a chiropractor, from testifying, arguing the expert was not qualified and that his opinions were not based on a reliable foundation and were conclusory. The trial court granted the motion. The defendant then petitioned the Supreme Court of Texas, seeking review of the trial court’s order striking the affidavit. Continue Reading

by

In an east Texas car accident trial, the jury is given a set of instructions by which it is to decide the issues of the case. While some of the instructions are considered “boilerplate” and used in many cases, the particular facts of a certain accident may result in a more unique instruction tailored especially for that case.

Such an instruction can be subject to appellate review, as can other decisions made by a trial court during the litigation and trial of a vehicular accident claim. Of course, the trial court is afforded a certain amount of leeway, such that not every error will result in a reversal of the outcome of the matter on appeal.

However, if the trial court is found to have abused the relatively broad discretion granted it with regard to matters such as instructions to a jury – or questions submitted for the jury’s consideration – a reversal is quite possible. In such a situation, it is likely that a retrial will be necessary unless, of course, the parties manage to settle their dispute based on the appellate tribunal’s ruling.

Continue Reading

by

In an east Texas car accident case, the plaintiff has the burden of proving that the defendant’s negligence caused the accident in which the plaintiff was injured. If the plaintiff does not meet his or her burden of proving negligence by a preponderance of the evidence, he or she will not be entitled to recover money damages.

Sometimes, certain aspects of a case may be adjudicated prior to a jury trial. For instance, if there is not a genuine issue of material fact regarding which party’s failure to meet the applicable standard of care caused the crash, summary judgment may be granted as to the issue of liability.

However, the granting of such a motion is subject to appellate review, if the defendant choses to pursue an appeal. If the appeals court disagrees with the result reached by the trial court, the matter may be reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Continue Reading

by

In an east Texas car accident case, the plaintiff has the burden of proving not only that the defendant was negligent and caused the accident but also that there was a link of proximate causation between the defendant’s breach of the duty of care and the damages for which the plaintiff seeks compensation. This can be a difficult task in some cases.

The attorneys who are hired by the insurance companies of careless drivers are quick to point out any flaws or weaknesses in the plaintiff’s case, as their ultimate goal is to pay out as little as possible on each claim. They can sometimes be particularly effective at discounting the testimony of expert witnesses whom they believe are unqualified to render an opinion about the nature and/or extent of the plaintiff’s injuries and associated medical costs.

Facts of the Case

In a car crash lawsuit recently considered on appeal, the plaintiff was a motorist who was rear-ended by the defendant driver while stopped at a red light. At the time of the collision, the parties agreed that it was a minor accident and that it was not necessary to call the police. A few days after the accident, the plaintiff begin to experience pain in his lower back, hip, and wrist. The plaintiff later sought medical care, which included chiropractic care, an MRI (which showed two disk protrusions or herniations), physical therapy, and steroid injections.

Continue Reading

by

Most east Texas car accidents settle prior to an actual jury trial. When this happens, it is vitally important that all concerned parties fully understand the nature and extent of the agreement.

Unfortunately, there can sometimes be misunderstandings between the parties concerning the settlement agreement. This can potentially result in additional litigation, including a request for a court to interpret the agreement if a dispute arises.

Facts of the Case

In a recent car accident case considered on appeal, the plaintiff was a mother who sought to assert a claim for herself and her minor child following an automobile accident allegedly caused by the negligence of the defendant motorist. The defendant asserted an affirmative defense wherein he relied on a release and indemnity agreement that had allegedly been signed by the plaintiff and her husband a year earlier. Under the terms of the release, the defendant paid $6500 to the plaintiff’s husband, who was also involved in the accident along with the plaintiff and their minor child. As the litigation progressed, the defendant served requests for admissions on the plaintiff, but she did not answer them.

Continue Reading

Contact Information
Earl Drott Law 3301 Golden Road, #415 Tyler, TX 75701 Phone: (903) 531-9300

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 © 2016 – 2022, Earl Drott Law
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design