Texas Injury Lawyer Blog

Bicyclists struck by vehicles often sustain severe injuries. When such collisions are caused by negligent driving, the injured bicyclist may be able to recover damages in a civil lawsuit. Certain seemingly innocuous factual scenarios can present challenges in demonstrating fault, though, as shown in Max Nelson and Carolyn Nelson, as Co-Guardians of Matthew Nelson v. City of Plano (No. 05-21-00708-CV), a Texas case in which the court ruled that under the facts of the case the plaintiff could not show that the city waived its governmental immunity. If you or a loved one sustained injuries in a bike accident, you have the right to pursue claims against the party responsible for your harm, and you should meet with a Texas car accident attorney.

Factual Background of the Case

It is reported that the plaintiff, a man with cognitive disabilities, was riding his bicycle on a city sidewalk when he crashed into a truck driven by a city employee. The plaintiff sustained multiple fractures and internal injuries in the accident. He and his guardians subsequently sued the city, arguing that its negligence caused the accident and the plaintiff’s subsequent harm. The city filed an answer and set forth affirmative defenses, such as governmental immunity.

It is alleged that the plaintiff answered the city’s discovery requests, stating, among other things, that the plaintiff was riding his bicycle on a sidewalk owned and maintained by the city at the time of the accident and that he was solely pursuing an ordinary negligence claim against the city. Based on these statements, the city filed a plea to the jurisdiction on the grounds of governmental immunity. The court granted the plea, and the plaintiff appealed. Continue Reading

Pursuant to Texas law, parties injured in car accidents have two years from the date of the collision to pursue claims against the party responsible for the crash. If the responsible party is a political subdivision of the state, though, the injured party must comply with certain notice requirements as well; otherwise, the court may lack jurisdiction over their claim even if it is filed within the statute of limitations. Recently, the court in City of Arlington v. Christopher Evans (No. 02-22-00160-CI) explained the notice requirements imposed on plaintiffs pursuing claims against political subdivisions and ultimately found that the plaintiff’s failure to comply with said requirements demanded the dismissal of his claims. If you sustained harm in an auto accident, you might be owed compensation, and you should speak to a Texas car accident attorney promptly to avoid unwittingly waiving the right to recover damages.

Factual History of the Case

It is alleged that the plaintiff’s car was struck by a car owned by the defendant city. The plaintiff sustained injuries and property damage in the crash. As such, he filed a personal injury lawsuit against the defendant. In response, the defendant filed a plea to the jurisdiction in which it argued that the trial court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the case because the plaintiff failed to provide the defendant with formal and timely notice of his claim or demonstrate that the defendant had actual awareness that the plaintiff suffered injuries in the crash. The trial court denied the defendant’s plea to jurisdiction, and the defendant appealed.

Notice Requirements in Claims Against Political Subdivisions of the State

On appeal, the court found that the trial court erred in denying the defendant’s plea for jurisdiction. Thus, it reversed the trial court ruling. The court explained that governmental immunity categorically prohibits tort claims against municipalities like the defendant unless the legislature has consented to suit. For example, immunity is waived under the Torts Claims Act for car accidents caused by a municipality’s employees. Continue Reading

Texas law permits people who lose their loved ones in collisions to pursue wrongful death claims. Generally, such claims assert that the defendant’s negligence caused the decedent’s death. Establishing that a defendant’s careless driving caused an accident can be challenging, especially when they are the only surviving party that witnessed the crash. Recently, in Pleasant v. Tomas Granados Hernandez & Universal Tire & Wheel, Inc. (NO. 14-21-00617-CV), the court discussed what constitutes sufficient evidence to demonstrate negligence in a wrongful death case arising out of a car accident. If you lost a loved one in a car crash, you might be owed damages, and you should speak to a Texas truck accident attorney as soon as possible.

Factual and Procedural History of the Case

It is reported that the decedent was driving south on a Texas highway in October 2018. The defendant was approaching from the north in a box truck. When the two vehicles approached one another, the decedent suddenly crossed the center line. The defendant did not adjust his lane of travel, and the decedent subsequently struck the side of his vehicle, began spinning, and collided with a trailer being towed by a third vehicle.

Allegedly, the decedent sustained fatal injuries in the crash. As such, the plaintiff brought wrongful death claims against the defendant, alleging his negligence caused the decedent’s death. The defendant moved for summary judgment, and the trial court granted his motion. The plaintiff appealed. Continue Reading

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