Phil Johnson

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.

torts & liabilityprocedure

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.

family lawprocedure

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.

healthcareproceduretorts & liability

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.

torts & liabilityprocedure

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.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

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.

propertyprocedure

In this condemnation case, a municipal utility district initiated proceedings to acquire a waterline easement across commercial property owned by a Texas limited partnership after the parties could not agree on compensation. At the special commissioners' hearing, the district presented an appraiser's testimony and written report valuing damages at $9,342, which the commissioners awarded; the owner later objected, converting the matter to a civil suit, and sought to introduce an affidavit from an employee of its corporate general partner asserting $62,000 in damages. The Texas Supreme Court held that the employee did not qualify to testify about the property's fair market value under the Property Owner Rule or Texas Rule of Evidence 701, but that the district had adopted the appraiser's opinion by presenting it at the hearing; as a result, the court affirmed the court of appeals' reversal of the trial court's summary judgment that awarded the owner only nominal damages.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

In this case, a general contractor on a public transit construction project faced a lawsuit from the owner of an adjacent building for water damage caused by heavy rains, with claims including breach of contract based on the contractor's agreement with the transit authority to protect surrounding property. After the trial court dismissed tort claims on governmental immunity grounds, the contractor settled the remaining breach of contract claim and sought indemnification from its excess insurer, which denied coverage under the contractual liability exclusion in the CGL policy. The court held that the exclusion applied because the insured's liability was based solely on its contractual assumption of responsibility for the damage, the policy exception for liability that would exist absent the contract did not restore coverage, and the insurer was not estopped from denying coverage. The court affirmed that there was no coverage for the settlement payment.

business & regulatorypropertytorts & liability

The case involved the parents of a child who collapsed and died at a water park suing a doctor who had provided medical consultative advice to the park on safety procedures and defibrillator placement. The court decided that claims against the doctor based on the same underlying facts could not be brought as both health care liability claims under the Texas Medical Liability Act and ordinary negligence claims, and dismissed all claims for failure to file a required expert report. The core reasoning was that when underlying facts are encompassed by the TMLA as to a defendant, all related claims must be pursued as health care liability claims, and the Act cannot be avoided by artfully pleading or splitting claims into different categories with varying standards of care.

healthcaretorts & liability

This case arose from a conflict between the Texas Lottery Act, which bars assignment of the final two installment prize payments, and the Texas Uniform Commercial Code, which treats lottery winnings as assignable accounts and renders conflicting statutory restrictions ineffective. A prizewinner assigned his last two payments to settle a debt through an Arkansas court-approved arrangement, but the Lottery Commission refused to recognize it. The trial court and court of appeals ruled that the UCC controlled and permitted the assignments; the Texas Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the UCC's plain language in section 9.406(f) negated the Lottery Act prohibitions. The decision addressed the Commission's sovereign immunity claim under the Declaratory Judgments Act but focused on statutory interpretation without resort to extrinsic aids.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved the State of Texas obtaining an easement on the Brownlows' land to construct a mitigation pond for a highway expansion project, then excavating and removing over 87,500 cubic meters of dirt for use in the highway construction at another site. The Brownlows sued for inverse condemnation, asserting that the State had taken their property without compensation, while the State filed a plea to the jurisdiction claiming sovereign immunity and that the easement authorized the dirt's removal and use. The trial court granted the plea and dismissed the case, but the court of appeals reversed, and the Supreme Court affirmed. The court held that the easement's express terms were limited to opening, constructing, and maintaining the detention facility and did not grant the right to remove and use the excavated dirt for highway purposes, so the Brownlows stated a valid takings claim under the Texas Constitution from which the State lacks sovereign immunity.

propertycivil rights

The case involved whether the evidence was legally sufficient to support a trial court's order involuntarily committing K.E.W. for up to 90 days of temporary inpatient mental health services under the Texas Health and Safety Code. K.E.W., who had schizophrenia, told mental health staff and doctors of his plans to impregnate multiple women including his step-daughter, displayed written lists of targets, and became agitated when prevented from leaving to carry out his mission. The trial court found clear and convincing evidence that he was mentally ill and likely to cause serious harm to others, supported by expert testimony and recent overt acts. The court of appeals reversed, but the Texas Supreme Court reinstated the commitment order, ruling that the statements and conduct met the statutory requirement of recent overt acts tending to confirm the risk of harm.

healthcareprocedurecivil rights

The case involved the City of Waco challenging a hearing examiner's decision on discipline imposed on an assistant police chief for off-duty intoxication. The examiner found the charges true but reduced an indefinite suspension (equivalent to dismissal) to 180 days, ordered reinstatement at a lower rank, and awarded back pay and benefits. The City argued the examiner exceeded jurisdiction under the Civil Service Act by altering the discipline and awarding relief beyond his authority. The Texas Supreme Court held that the examiner exceeded his jurisdiction in part and that the appropriate remedy was to vacate the decision and order a rehearing, reversing the court of appeals and remanding to the trial court.

labor & employmentprocedure

This products liability case arose after a fatal fire in the Camachos' trailer home, which the family attributed to a design defect in their Whirlpool electric clothes dryer; they alleged that a corrugated lint transport tube allowed lint to accumulate, ignite via the heating element, and spread fire to clothing and the surrounding structure. The jury found for the plaintiffs on the design defect claim, but the Texas Supreme Court held that the sole expert testimony supporting the verdict was legally insufficient. The court reasoned that the expert's opinions on lint clogging and ignition lacked reliable testing, peer-reviewed support, or other indicia of reliability under the Robinson factors, and failed to account for contradictory physical evidence and the dryer's actual operation. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and rendered judgment that the Camachos take nothing.

torts & liability

In this health care liability case, the plaintiffs alleged negligent medical treatment and, after a multi-week trial, the jury returned a verdict for the defendant hospital. The original trial judge granted the plaintiffs' motion for a new trial, later citing juror affidavits as the basis, but then resigned; successor judges later reaffirmed the new-trial order without stating reasons. The Texas Supreme Court held that it could not rely on the original judge's explanation when reviewing the successor judges' actions and, under controlling precedent, conditionally granted mandamus relief directing the current trial court to specify its reasons for refusing to enter judgment on the jury verdict.

procedurehealthcaretorts & liability

In Hernandez v. Ebrom, a patient sued a doctor for complications after knee surgery and provided an expert report as required in health care liability cases under Texas law. The doctor moved to dismiss, arguing the report was deficient, but the trial court denied the motion as to the doctor; the patient then nonsuited the case before trial, leading to a final dismissal. The doctor appealed the denial after final judgment, seeking attorney fees, but the court of appeals dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, holding the issue was moot due to the nonsuit. The Texas Supreme Court reversed, ruling that the doctor's failure to take an optional interlocutory appeal did not waive his right to challenge the report after final judgment. The core reasoning was that the statute authorizing appeals from orders denying challenges to expert reports uses permissive language ('may'), so an interlocutory appeal is not required and no waiver occurs absent explicit statutory consequences.

healthcareprocedure

This case was a mandamus proceeding in which DuPont challenged a trial court's order granting a new trial in a wrongful death lawsuit alleging that asbestos exposure at a DuPont facility caused the plaintiff's mesothelioma. The jury had returned a verdict finding no negligence by DuPont, leading to a take-nothing judgment, but the trial court granted the plaintiff's motion for new trial without stating any reasons. The Supreme Court of Texas held that the trial court abused its discretion by disregarding the jury verdict without providing specific and reasonable grounds for doing so. Relying on its recent decision in In re Columbia Medical Center, the court reasoned that such an unexplained order is arbitrary and that mandamus relief is available because an appeal would not provide an adequate remedy. The court directed the trial court to specify its reasons but declined to review the underlying grounds for the new trial motion.

proceduretorts & liability

This case arose after a jury returned a unanimous verdict for the defendants in a medical negligence suit brought by the family of a patient who died in the hospital. The trial court granted a new trial as to some defendants, stating only that it was doing so "in the interests of justice and fairness," without further explanation. The defendants sought mandamus relief from the Texas Supreme Court, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion by disregarding the jury verdict without specifying reasons. The Court held that, consistent with the Texas Constitution's protection of the right to jury trial and the requirement that appellate courts explain reversals of jury verdicts, trial courts must provide more detailed reasons when setting aside a verdict and granting a new trial. It conditionally granted mandamus to require the trial court to specify its reasons but did not order entry of judgment on the verdict.

proceduretorts & liability

This case was a health care liability suit by Alice Hawley and her husband against Columbia Rio Grande Healthcare hospital alleging negligence in failing to timely notify her physicians of a cancer diagnosis from a pathology report, which delayed treatment until the cancer had spread. The trial court refused requested jury instructions on new and independent cause, the independent contractor status of the pathologist, and lost chance of survival, and entered judgment on a verdict finding the hospital negligent. The Texas Supreme Court concluded that the trial court erred by refusing instructions on the pathologist's independent contractor status and on lost chance of survival. The court reversed and remanded for a new trial, reasoning that the omission was harmful because the broad-form charge allowed the jury to find liability on an invalid basis without any way to determine whether it had done so.

healthcareproceduretorts & liability

This case involved a dispute between the Tomball Hospital Authority and the Harris County Hospital District over payment for medical care provided to indigent patients who were residents of the district. The hospital authority sued the district to recover the costs, arguing that the Indigent Health Care and Treatment Act and the Texas Constitution required payment and waived the district's governmental immunity. The trial court dismissed the suit based on immunity, but the court of appeals reversed, finding waiver in statutory language allowing the district to sue and be sued. The Supreme Court of Texas held that the Legislature had not waived the district's immunity either explicitly or by implication from the constitutional and statutory provisions, leading to dismissal of the case.

healthcareprocedure