An Update from Our Firm about COVID-19

Abraham, Watkins, Nichols, Sorrels, Agosto, Aziz & Stogner remains fully operational and committed to serving our clients and colleagues throughout the Coronavirus (COVID-19) crisis. As we follow the CDC guidelines and practice social distancing, we remain available for phone consultations and scheduled in-person meetings with both current and prospective clients and colleagues. Please contact our office by email or by calling 713-222-7211 with any questions. We look forward to hearing from you.

Supreme Court Reverses Jury Verdict for Plaintiffs Again

Last week, in the case of Texas Department of Transportation v. York, ___ S.W.3d ___ (Tex. 2009) (5/22/09), the Supreme Court reversed a verdict in favor of the family members of a woman who was killed when her car went out of control after it hit loose gravel a day after TxDOT applied a "spot seal coat" to repair a highway; her car crossed the centerline and hit an oncoming vehicle. The Supreme Court reversed a verdict of $1,033,440 and held that there was "no jurisdiction" over TxDOT by stating that "loose gravel is not a special defect as a matter of law. . . ."

Unless waived by statute, the government is immune from suit. In the statute which waives immunity, there are different "duties of care" depending upon if "the condition was a premises defect or a special defect. . . . If a claim involves a premise defect . . . , a licensee standard applies. Under a licensee standard, a plaintiff must prove that the governmental unit had actual knowledge of a condition that created an unreasonable risk of harm, and also that the licensee did not have actual knowledge of that same condition. But if a claim involves a special defect . . . , a more lenient invitee standard applies. Under an invitee standard, a plaintiff need only prove that the governmental unit should have known of a condition that created an unreasonable risk of harm."

The statute likens special defects to "excavations or obstructions." These are not exclusive or exhaustive examples. Nevertheless, the Court ruled that a "special defect, then, cannot be a condition that falls outside of this class." Characteristics of the class include "the size of the dangerous condition," "some unusual quality outside the ordinary course of events," and "something that 'unexpectedly and physically impair[s] a car's ability to travel on the road.' A layer of loose gravel on a road does not share the characteristics . . . and, thus, does not fit within the same class as an obstruction or excavation . . . [since it does not] form a hole in the road or physically block the road. . . ." (Gravel could be a special defect if it were "a sizeable mound.") Specifically, the Court held that a layer of loose gravel on the highway is not an "unexpected and unusual danger."

Since the trial court gave a charge to the jury than included "an invitee standard of care," to which TxDOT objected, "York cannot recover under an ordinary premises defect claim." The plaintiff did not obtain findings that "TxDOT had actual knowledge of the loose gravel and that York lacked actual knowledge of the loose gravel." So, the jury's verdict was reversed, and the plaintiffs' case was permanently thrown out of court.

No named justice wrote this opinion; instead, it was issued "per curium."

The same day, the Supreme Court also threw out of court a case entitled Texas Department of Transportation v. Gutierrez, ___ S.W.3d ___ (Tex. 2009) (5/22/09), in which a jury had awarded a severely injured plaintiff damages, by holding once more that "loose gravel is not a special defect as a matter of law."

No Comments

Leave a comment
Comment Information
  • $50+ Million Fire & Explosion

    The firm successfully represented nearly 100 victims who suffered personal injuries and damages to property from a large fire and explosion resulting in a settlement of more than $50 million. The firm served as lead lawyers on the steering committee in this litigation.

  • $80 Million Plant Explosion

    The firm successfully represented 270 plaintiffs, taking a lead role in the plaintiffs’ steering committee, who suffered injuries in a large plant explosion resulting in a settlement of nearly $80 million.

  • $50+ Million Plant Fire & Explosion

    The firm successfully represented 45 personal injury victims in a plant fire and explosion, serving on the plaintiffs steering committee, concluding with a settlement of more than $50 million.

  • $22+ Million Worksite Accident

    The firm prevailed in a personal injury trial for a worksite injury client with the jury returning a verdict and resulting in a judgment of over $22 million for the firm’s client.

  • $12 Million 18-Wheeler Collision

    The firm successfully achieved a $12 million settlement for the family of a man who died in an 18 wheeler collision.

  • $48 Million Catastrophic Burns

    The firm prevailed on behalf of three burn victims with settlements totaling nearly $48 million.

Our Record Of Success

When you are hurt and you choose a law firm to represent you in court or at the negotiation table, you need to carefully consider the firm's record.

Read More Success Stories

Let Us Help You Request a Free Consultation Today

Get Help Now

Bold labels are required.

Contact Information
disclaimer.

The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.

close

Privacy Policy

Back to top