Posted on September 23, 2015 in Uncategorized

Much like strong walls are made from solid bricks, successful truck wreck cases are built with solid facts. To continue the analogy, it is an investigator’s job to collect as many facts as possible, and an attorney’s job to select the most favorable facts and assemble them in the best way possible. However, today’s investigator is just as likely to be a person with a lab coat as a 1980s TV detective with a fast car, quick wit, and a sharp tongue.

Established Methods

In many respects, the most important investigator is the victim. If possible, get the name and contact information of all witnesses. Take pictures as well, not only of the damage to the car and any personal injuries, but also of the surrounding area.

It is also imperative to see a doctor as soon as possible, but at least within 24 hours. If you have no money or no insurance, your attorney can typically arrange a doctor’s appointment for you at no cost. As a side note, it is always best to see a physician who has experience treating the kinds of injuries that you sustained.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on September 18, 2015 in Uncategorized

Officers nearly always ask this question of intoxicated motorists who cause a car crash. The answer can lead the attorney to the correct third party liability theory.

For various reasons, it is extremely difficult, though not impossible, to link a retail alcohol sale to a subsequent intoxication episode. However, if the driver’s most recent stop was at a bar or restaurant, there is a very good chance that the person was already intoxicated at that time, and the server may be liable for damages under the dram shop law. There is a third possibility. Like most states, Texas has a social host liability law.

Minors

Section 2.02 is very straightforward in this regard. An adult over 21 is legally responsible for damages proximately caused by an intoxicated minor under 18 if that adult:

• Provided any alcoholic beverage that contributed to the minor’s intoxication; or
• Allowed minors to be served, and the service contributed to intoxication.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on September 16, 2015 in Uncategorized

What does a 150-year-old negligence case from Massachusetts have to do with car wrecks in San Antonio?

Brown v. Kendall may have been the first appearance of the “reasonable person” standard in American tort law. According to trial testimony, the defendant, Mr. Kendall, used a walking stick to separate two fighting dogs. While waving the stick, he accidentally hit Mr. Brown, who was standing nearby. The trial court told the jury that since Mr. Kendall engaged in a permissible act – separating the dogs – he would only be liable for accidental damages in extraordinary conditions.

The Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that the trial court was wrong, and that the standard of care is the same in all negligence cases, no matter the circumstances. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Lemuel Shaw simply stated that “the plaintiff must come prepared with evidence to show either that the intention was unlawful, or that the defendant was in fault,” adding that “what constitutes ordinary care will vary with the circumstances of cases.”

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on September 09, 2015 in Uncategorized

Authorities believe that the driver who caused a near-fatal car crash on the North Side may have been street racing, which raises the possibility of additional damages in a civil case.

This wreck took place at the intersection of Blanco Road and Wilderness Oak in San Antonio. A man in a Ford Festiva accelerated through a red light, clipped a Toyota Highlander, and then careened into a GMC Yukon. That Yukon’s driver was rushed to a nearby hospital with serious injuries. First responders had to use the Jaws of Life to extricate the Festiva driver from his vehicle; he was then airlifted to an area hospital suffering from severe leg and head trauma.

The Festiva and Highlander drivers were not identified.

Punitive Damages

Although a recent round of tort reform sharply limited these exemplary damages, they are still available in many serious car crash matters, most specifically those that involve racing, reckless driving, DUI with a high blood alcohol content, or failure to stop and render aid. All these things may be considered “gross negligence” under Chapter 41 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code. That provision defines gross negligence as any act or omission that involves an extreme degree of risk, and the actor knew of the possible consequences and persisted in the course of action.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on August 31, 2015 in Uncategorized

Effective last September, all new passenger vehicles sold in San Antonio and around the country must have an Event Data Recorder. These “black boxes” record vital information, so they can give an accurate statistical profile of the events immediately prior to a “Crash”. But, unless an attorney acts quickly, this important evidence may be “Gone with the Wind.”

EDRs

Black boxes have been standard equipment in airplanes for a number of decades. The trucking industry has resisted calls to make these devices mandatory, citing the installation costs. But vehicle manufacturers are all too happy to pass the cost along to consumers.

While earlier versions of the EDR only recorded a few facts, such as whether or not the air bags deployed, the latest back boxes measure and record much more information, including:

• Brake application;
• Velocity;

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on August 29, 2015 in Uncategorized

In August 2015, a Harris County, Texas, jury awarded six injured plaintiffs $159 million in damages in a catastrophic personal injury case stemming from a refinery explosion.

One plaintiff was killed and five others seriously burned when a plant in Memphis, Tennessee, ruptured and released a flood of liquid fire. The state had previously cited the employers for failing to properly block off the refinery’s south fire lane, a negligent oversight that eventually caused the explosion. Two of the three defendants settled prior to trial, and under Texas’ comparative fault law, the judge allowed that defendant to deflect blame onto the other parties.

The case was the third seven figure-plus verdict in Houston this year, which is not normally considered a plaintiff-friendly venue.

Catastrophic Injuries

Despite years of adverse tort reform, juries are still willing to award large sums of money in cases that involve a clearly negligent defendant and a seriously injured plaintiff. These elements are present in a number of South Central Texas negligence cases, such as:

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on August 28, 2015 in Uncategorized

Despite the fact that its fact pattern reads like something from a television reality show gone horribly awry, an unusual negligence case from Ohio has some practical applications for truck wrecks in San Antonio.

Facts

The dispute in Blank-Greer v. Tannerite Sports, LLC began innocently enough, as two friends discussed how to best celebrate the pending arrival of a new baby in May 2012. One man suggested that they hold a “diaper shootout,” during which the partygoers could bring diapers for the new baby, and spend the day shooting guns in the backyard. It gets better. Another person recommended that the group blow up a refrigerator for the “grand finale.”

Rather predictably, the event ended badly. One man used a truck commonly utilized for his business to haul the doomed appliance to the targeting area. The end result was almost catastrophic. When the explosives detonated, the refrigerator “immediately blew apart and sent shrapnel flying across the yard.” A large piece hit the plaintiff in the hand, and nearly severed it. Sixteen reconstructive surgeries later, she is still only able to wiggle her thumb, and doctors do not believe her hand will improve.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on August 26, 2015 in Uncategorized

Although it is more than one hundred years old, a decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Court provides one of the clearest examples of negligence in a landowner liability case.

Facts

In Anjou v. Boston Elevated Railway Co., the claimant was waiting for a train at the crowded Dudley Street Terminal. After the crowd thinned a bit, she asked a railroad employee for directions to her train. As she walked, she slipped on a “dry and gritty” object that turned out to be a black banana peel. Witnesses testified that the offending peel was “flattened down, and black in color.” In fact, “every bit of it was black, there wasn’t a particle of yellow.” The court focused on this fact when resolving the dispute.

Ms. Anjou prevailed at trial, and the court awarded her $1,250 plus costs, which translates to over $35,000 today.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on August 21, 2015 in Uncategorized

Just over 20 years ago, a New Mexico jury awarded a 79-year-old woman nearly $3 million in damages resulting from a spilled cup of coffee. This personal injury case became a rallying cry for pundits all over the country; Texas adopted extensive tort reforms in 2001, partially in response to this case. But what really happened? Did this victim obtain justice, or just a bloated monetary verdict?

Facts

Stella Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurants began in a drive-thru at an Albuquerque restaurant. Although the media widely reported some of the facts, namely that the woman spilled a cup of hot coffee in her lap, other vital facts did not receive nearly as much attention.

Some of the victim’s damages were not the restaurant’s fault. There was a warning label on the coffee cup, and the woman happened to be wearing cotton pants that absorbed the hot liquid and held it against her skin.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on August 19, 2015 in Uncategorized

Section 2 of the Alcoholic Beverage Code, also known as the Dram Shop Law, states that restaurants, bars, hotels, and other similar vendors are liable for the negligent acts of their intoxicated patrons. These acts typically include car crashes and assaults.

In response to a suit for damages, these employers often invoke the somewhat mislabeled “safe harbor defense” found in Section 106.14. What does the defendant employer need to prove to avoid liability, and how can the plaintiff effectively respond to this defense?

Alcohol Training Program

It is not enough to simply offer a class in which an instructor tells people not to serve drunk patrons. To establish the safe harbor defense, an employer must:

• Require that all employees attend a class;

Continue Reading ››