This case involved a car accident in which Edward Cantu, driving a truck for Puckett Auto Sales, negligently injured Juana Arvizu and her son. MCAA employed Cantu and assigned him the delivery task at Puckett's direction under a longstanding commercial arrangement. The jury found that Cantu was MCAA's employee but that both Cantu and MCAA were acting on a mission for Puckett's benefit and subject to Puckett's control over the details. The trial court rendered a joint-and-several judgment against MCAA and Puckett; the court of appeals reversed on grounds that the jury findings on control conflicted. The Texas Supreme Court reversed the appeals court, holding that the findings could be reconciled under subagency principles, rendering Puckett vicariously liable as principal.
The case involved a request under the Texas Public Information Act for copies of administrative decisions and orders issued by the State Office of Administrative Hearings in license suspension proceedings related to delinquent child support. The lower courts upheld the agency's refusal to disclose the information based on confidentiality provisions in the Texas Family Code and federal law. The Supreme Court held that the orders must be disclosed after redacting any confidential information not already public, reasoning that the bulk of the documents were standardized forms without protected personal details and that the Public Information Act's disclosure requirements under section 552.022 applied. The court reversed the lower courts' decisions and remanded for further proceedings.
The case involved a lawsuit by the estate of a nursing home resident who died after allegedly being bitten by a brown recluse spider. The plaintiff claimed ordinary negligence by the facility in failing to maintain safe premises free of pests. The Supreme Court of Texas held that these claims constituted health care liability claims under Texas law because they involved departures from accepted safety standards directly related to the health care and confinement provided by the nursing home. Therefore, the plaintiff was required to serve an expert report, and the case was remanded for dismissal due to the failure to do so.
The case involved a family suing a cemetery operator (SCI Texas) and its parent corporation (SCI International) after the cemetery moved a deceased family member's body without permission to another plot that had been sold to someone else, asserting claims including negligence, trespass, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The trial court awarded actual and exemplary damages to the widow and daughters based on jury findings, which the court of appeals largely affirmed. The Texas Supreme Court held there was legally insufficient evidence to support liability against the parent corporation or mental anguish damages for the daughters, and that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of other lawsuits against the cemetery operator, leading to reversal in part and remand for a new trial on the widow's claims against SCI Texas.
In this case, a six-year-old girl was severely burned when her brother accidentally set fire to her dress using a BIC J-26 lighter, prompting a products liability suit by her mother against BIC Pen Corp. alleging both manufacturing and design defects in the lighter. After an earlier appeal held the design defect claim preempted by federal regulations, the court of appeals affirmed the trial judgment based on the manufacturing defect finding. The Texas Supreme Court reversed and rendered judgment for BIC, concluding there was legally insufficient evidence that any manufacturing defect in the subject lighter caused the injuries because the evidence failed to show deviation from specifications or a causal link.
This case involves a partial-taking condemnation action in which the State of Texas acquired .33 acres from the Petropouloses' 3.5-acre tract for a highway expansion project, and the parties disputed the amount of compensation owed. The landowners presented evidence of the pre-taking value of the entire tract but offered no proof that the taking caused any damage to the remainder property, while the State's appraiser testified that the taking caused no such damage and that the remainder's post-taking value was unaffected. The trial court directed a verdict on the remainder's post-taking value and charged the jury only on the pre-taking value of the whole property, leading to a judgment based on the difference between those figures. The Texas Supreme Court held that the jury charge was erroneous and that there was no evidence of compensable remainder damages, reversing the court of appeals and remanding for a judgment awarding compensation only for the value of the land taken.
