Raul A. Gonzalez

The case involved a negligence suit by a customer raped by a door-to-door vacuum cleaner salesman against the product's manufacturer, Kirby, and its independent contractor distributor. The trial court awarded actual and punitive damages based on jury findings that Kirby was 80% negligent, but the court of appeals affirmed only the actual damages. The Texas Supreme Court held that Kirby owed a duty to exercise reasonable care in controlling its distributors because it required in-home demonstrations and sales as part of its marketing system, creating a peculiar risk that justified background checks on dealers. The court affirmed the judgment on actual damages, reasoning that the company's contractual mandates and oversight gave it sufficient control to impose liability for failing to take precautions against foreseeable harm by unfit dealers.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

The case involved a customer who slipped and fell in a grocery store and sued the store for negligence. The trial court gave the jury a conditional instruction, based on the Texas Pattern Jury Charge, directing them to answer the damages question only if they found the plaintiff's negligence to be fifty percent or less. The jury found both parties fifty percent negligent and awarded damages. The Texas Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, holding that the instruction did not violate Rule 277 because the rule expressly permits conditioning the damages question on affirmative findings of liability and allows incidental comments on the effect of the jury's answers.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case is a medical malpractice suit by the mother of a deceased infant against Wadley Regional Medical Center for alleged negligence in failing to properly resuscitate the newborn after meconium aspiration during delivery, with the Arkansas Department of Human Services intervening to recover Medicaid payments for the child's medical care. The jury awarded $500,000 in medical expenses to the mother, but the trial court directed most of that sum to ADHS and nothing to the mother; the court of appeals modified the judgment to allow the mother partial recovery. The Texas Supreme Court reversed, holding there was no evidence linking the full amount of awarded expenses to the hospital's negligence because no expert testimony segregated which treatments and costs were attributable to the meconium-related injuries versus the child's pre-existing congenital conditions. Although some evidence supported that at least part of the expenses resulted from the negligence, the lack of specific proof required remand for a new trial rather than rendition of judgment.

torts & liabilityprocedurehealthcare

This case concerned whether wrongful death and survival claims brought by Carolyn Westphal on behalf of her minor son Eric against Dr. Gustavo Diaz were timely filed under the two-year statute of limitations in section 10.01 of the Medical Liability and Insurance Improvement Act. The trial court granted summary judgment for the doctor on limitations grounds, the court of appeals reversed only as to the minor's claims, and the Texas Supreme Court reversed the appeals court and rendered judgment for the defendant. The Court held that the claims were derivative of the decedent's own potential malpractice action, which would have been time-barred, and that neither the discovery rule nor the open-courts doctrine tolled the limitations period because the claims were purely statutory rather than common-law rights.

healthcaretorts & liabilityprocedure

The case concerned whether the City of Alamo could be enjoined to reinstate Minerva Montes as city secretary after a jury found she was fired primarily for political reasons in violation of her rights under the Texas Constitution. The trial court awarded damages and issued a permanent injunction altering her at-will status, and the court of appeals affirmed the injunction while reversing the damages. After Montes resigned her position, the Texas Supreme Court dismissed the case as moot, holding that her resignation eliminated any live controversy between the parties and that any ruling would be advisory, vacating the judgments below without reaching the merits.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case concerns a damages suit brought by softball player Kenneth Greer against base runner Martin Davis after a collision at home plate during a municipal league game, in which Greer alleged reckless or intentional conduct caused his injuries. The trial court granted summary judgment for Davis, but the court of appeals reversed that ruling. On application for writ of error, the court denied review on procedural grounds without reaching the duty issue, though Justice Gonzalez wrote separately to critique the reckless-or-intentional standard as insufficient to shield participants from suit over inherent game risks. The opinion proposes that voluntary participation in a sport constitutes consent to foreseeable contacts and injuries typical of the activity, allowing summary disposition when an injury stems from such risks while preserving remedies for abnormal conduct.

torts & liabilityprocedure