Unfortunately, there is not a one-size-fits-all answer to that question. While there is a general statute of limitations for personal injury claims, there are many case-specific exceptions to the general rule. Thus, if you have been hurt in a wreck or lost a loved one in a fatal crash, it is imperative that you take swift action to protect your legal rights.
Generally speaking, Texas law prevents those who are entitled to receive workers’ compensation benefits from filing a negligence lawsuit against their employer or co-workers. Of course, who exactly is or is not an “employer” can be the subject of great dispute.
Recently, a Texas appeals court was called upon to weigh in on the question of whether a garbage company to which a temporary staffing agency had assigned a worker was the worker’s “employer” for the purposes of the exclusive remedy provision of the workers’ compensation statutes.
Under Texas tort law, a person who is hurt due to the negligence of another individual, a business, or a governmental entity has the option of filing a civil lawsuit seeking compensation for damages such as pain and suffering, lost wages, and medical expenses.
In order to establish a prima facie case of negligence, the plaintiff must provide proof of four distinct elements: duty, breach of duty, causation, and damages.
Once this hurdle is met, other issues, including the amount of damages necessary to fully compensate the plaintiff for his or her injuries, must be decided. One of the most common issues that arise in Texas car accident cases is that of proportionate responsibility.
If you’re old enough, you may remember when a certain national pizza chain guaranteed that your pizza would be delivered within 30 minutes. If it took longer than that for your pizza to arrive at your front door, it was free.
The pizza company ended that marketing campaign many years ago, and it has long been rumored that one of the primary reasons was that the company had faced multiple lawsuits from accident victims who claimed that the guarantee encouraged pizza deliverymen to drive unsafely in order to avoid giving away free pizza.
Now, a Texas teenager has reportedly filed suit against an internet sales giant, alleging that she was injured by a driver attempting to honor that company’s two-hour delivery promise.
Motor vehicle accidents are not planned. As the recent east Texas accidents highlighted below reveal, a crash can happen in a split second, sometimes under highly improbable circumstances, forever changing the lives of innocent motorists, passengers, and even pedestrians in the process.
Those who are injured (or whose loved ones perish) in a traffic accident caused by another party’s negligent or reckless conduct have a right to file suit in a court of law against the responsible party.
While monetary compensation cannot bring back lost loved ones or undo a permanent disability suffered in a crash, a settlement or judgment can help ease the financial strain caused by a serious accident or a loved one’s wrongful death.
The Court of Appeals for the Twelfth Court of Appeals District at Tyler, Texas, has now made a decision in a truck accident case that we first brought to your attention last summer. The case, which arose as a result of a truck-car accident in Gregg County, resulted in a jury verdict of close to $4 million in late 2015.
The defendants – the owner and driver of a cable “spooling” truck – filed their notice of appeal more than a year ago, seeking relief from the trial court’s order entering judgment upon the jury’s verdict. Continue Reading
Preparing a lawsuit for trial can be a time-consuming and expensive endeavor. In addition to retaining experts on the plaintiff’s behalf, plaintiff’s counsel may also find it necessary to depose the experts retained by the defendant in order to anticipate how a particular expert witness’s testimony is likely to impact the trial of the case.
Expert witnesses are usually paid quite well for their services. Insomuch as the witness’s testimony may be necessary to the plaintiff’s case, an expert’s fee is usually money well-spent. However, under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the plaintiff may be also be responsible for paying a portion of the fee charged by the defendant’s expert in some situations.
This is, of course, a much more bitter pill to swallow – especially when the defendant asks the plaintiff pay the expert for time that he or she spent consulting with the defendant’s own attorneys about the case.
Four young women from North Central Texas College were killed in a motor vehicle accident in 2014. Several others were seriously injured. The women were all members of a college softball team, and they were on their way home from a sporting event in Oklahoma.
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) investigated the crash and determined that the accident was probably caused by the failure of a truck driver to control his rig. According to the Board, the driver was operating a semi that crossed the median and collided with the bus in which the young women were riding.
Recently, several new developments have occurred in the case.
One of the core components of the American legal system is the right to a trial by jury. While not every civil lawsuit triggers a jury trial, those that do sometimes come with a myriad of issues that the jury must resolve.
In a car accident case, for instance, the jury may be asked to apportion fault between the respective parties, assess compensatory damages, and perhaps resolve other, case-specific issues. The appellate review of a trial court’s entry of judgment on a jury’s verdict can, therefore, be a rather complex endeavor.
Many issues, including proportionate responsibility (sometimes known as contributory negligence or comparative fault), can arise in a vehicle accident case. Recently, a Texas appeals court was asked to consider this issue, along with several evidentiary issues, after an accident involving an armored truck left a man with serious injuries.
The jury found in favor of the injured man, awarding him a substantial verdict. Dissatisfied with the result, the defendants appealed.