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

This case arose from a gold scam in which a jury awarded approximately $1.3 billion in damages, including $800 million in exemplary damages. The trial court reduced the award through remittitur to about $175 million, with $100 million in exemplary damages, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Texas Supreme Court denied the petition for writ of error, finding the petitioners' points of error without merit. Justice Gonzalez concurred but separately urged the Legislature to pass a law allocating half of punitive damage awards to the state, arguing that such damages serve to punish and deter rather than compensate plaintiffs who already received full actual damages.

torts & liability

In this case, Judy Cox Swate sought a writ of habeas corpus after being held in contempt and committed to jail for failing to comply with a turnover order requiring her to surrender funds awarded in her divorce to satisfy her ex-husband's child support arrearages owed to his prior spouse. The Supreme Court of Texas granted relief and ordered her discharged. The Court reasoned that the commitment order was void because it increased the original contempt punishment—by requiring additional payments and arrangements—without providing new notice or a hearing, thereby violating due process. The opinion also addressed limitations on using turnover orders against third parties not directly subject to the underlying judgment.

family lawprocedurecriminal law

The case concerned whether General American Life Insurance Co. could defend against paying life insurance proceeds by claiming misrepresentations in an application that was not attached to the policies issued to Claytor Blake III, who died of a gunshot wound. After a jury found no suicide and no misrepresentations and that the application was unattached, the trial court awarded the proceeds to Fredonia State Bank as assignee and executor; the court of appeals reversed on factual-sufficiency grounds regarding the misrepresentations. The Texas Supreme Court held that article 21.35 of the Texas Insurance Code bars an insurer from relying on statements in an unattached application to defeat a claim, reversed the court of appeals, and remanded for further proceedings. The court also addressed preservation of error and jurisdiction but focused its holding on the statutory prohibition. The core reasoning was that the statute's plain language and historical purpose require attachment of the application to allow its use as a defense.

business & regulatory

The case involved a Texas prison inmate suing a newspaper publisher over an article that allegedly placed him in a false light by inaccurately describing aspects of his criminal history, including references to the "Dixie Mafia" and multiple killings. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit certified questions to the Texas Supreme Court on whether Texas recognizes the tort of false light invasion of privacy and, if so, the applicable statute of limitations. The court answered the first question in the negative, declining to adopt the tort. It reasoned that false light substantially overlaps with defamation but lacks key procedural protections such as shorter statutes of limitations and heightened proof requirements, making recognition unnecessary and potentially problematic. The court noted that Texas already recognizes other privacy torts like intrusion and public disclosure of private facts but found no basis to extend protection to false light claims.

torts & liabilityfree speech

This case concerned whether the Texas Clean Air Act applied to odors emitted by a calf-feeding facility in Erath County, Texas. The State, acting through the Texas Air Control Board, sought an injunction and penalties against F/R Cattle Company for operating without a permit, alleging the release of air contaminants. The trial court dismissed the suit for lack of jurisdiction after finding that the odors resulted from natural processes occurring in a rural agricultural area and were controlled by human means only to a normal extent. The court of appeals reversed, holding that the facility's operations fell under the Act as a matter of law. The Texas Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and remanded for further proceedings, concluding that the facility's emissions qualified for the statutory exclusion of pollutants produced by natural processes.

environmentbusiness & regulatory

The case involved a dispute over the beneficial ownership of funds in a trust account opened by John Oadra and his mother Stella, with John contributing all the money as the sole grantor and both serving as trustees for named beneficiaries including John's children and grandchildren. After John's murder, Stella withdrew the remaining funds, prompting litigation by the administrator of John's estate to recover them under his will. The trial court distributed portions of the funds to Stella, John's daughter Robin, and Robin's children based on jury findings that no inter vivos gift occurred, but the court of appeals awarded the funds to Stella as the surviving trustee. The supreme court reversed and remanded, holding that section 438(c) of the Texas Probate Code establishes beneficial ownership during the parties' lifetimes in proportion to contributions, while section 439(d) transfers a deceased party's interest to their estate absent an express survivorship agreement, so the funds passed through John's estate rather than to the surviving trustee.

propertyfamily law

This case involved an oil and gas dispute in which Page Petroleum sued Dresser Industries and Houston Fishing Tools for negligence after equipment failures during well operations led to the loss of a well, with the contractors defending on the basis of contractual release and indemnity clauses that purported to shield them from liability for their own negligence. The trial court entered judgment for Page after a jury allocated fault, but the court of appeals reversed the award against Houston Fishing while upholding the award against Dresser, treating the clauses differently. The Texas Supreme Court held that the fair notice requirements of conspicuousness and the express negligence doctrine apply equally to releases and indemnity agreements when they relieve a party of responsibility for its own negligence in advance, concluded that the clauses here were not conspicuous as a matter of law, and therefore reversed the court of appeals' take-nothing judgment for Houston Fishing while affirming the judgment against Dresser.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

This products liability case arose after two brothers died from asphyxiation aboard a shrimp boat when they used a chemical preservative manufactured by General Chemical Corporation in an enclosed space, releasing toxic sulfur dioxide gas despite warning labels on the product. Their parents sued the manufacturer for negligence, gross negligence, and violations of the Texas wrongful death statute, seeking actual and punitive damages. The Supreme Court of Texas held that state law governed the case because any invocation of federal maritime law had been waived by the parties' conduct at trial, and that the punitive damages award both exceeded the statutory cap under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 41.007 and violated the Texas Constitution's prohibition on parents recovering punitive damages for wrongful death. The court therefore affirmed the judgment in part but reversed and remanded for recalculation of damages consistent with state law limits.

torts & liabilityprocedurefederal power

In this oil and gas dispute involving permanent school fund lands, the State of Texas sued successors to surface owners alleging a conspiracy to defraud the State of royalties under the Relinquishment Act of 1934, claiming that secret agreements allowed extra mineral interests to be acquired without sharing them as required. The trial court granted take-nothing summary judgment to the defendants, which the court of appeals affirmed on grounds including res judicata from a 1934 judgment that approved a lease on the land. The Supreme Court of Texas reversed and remanded, holding that the prior judgment did not bar the present claims because it did not litigate or resolve issues of alleged secret side agreements or breaches of the surface owner's agency duties to the State. The court reasoned that material fact issues remained regarding the validity of the conspiracy allegations and that the State's evidence raised triable questions not precluded by the earlier proceedings.

propertyprocedure

The case concerns the Texas Supreme Court's handling of an application for writ of error in a tort action brought by the Havner family against E-Z Mart Stores, Inc., arising from a store employee's injury or death during a robbery and related claims about inadequate security measures. The court withdrew its earlier grant of the writ and denied review, holding that further consideration would improperly second-guess the court of appeals. The core reasoning rests on the Texas Constitution's provision making courts of appeals' determinations conclusive on questions of factual sufficiency of the evidence, preventing the supreme court from repeatedly remanding the case for additional factual reviews.

proceduretorts & liability

The consolidated cases involved two constables in Ector County who sued for additional reasonable compensation for past services after receiving minimal salaries set by the county commissioners court. The trial court dismissed the claims for lack of jurisdiction to determine or award past salaries. The court of appeals reversed, relying on the trial court's alternative findings of reasonable salary amounts to award damages, interest, and fees. The Texas Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and affirmed the trial court, holding that district courts lack jurisdiction to set constables' salaries for past or future service because that authority is vested in the commissioners court under the Texas Constitution, with district court review limited to instances of the commissioners court acting beyond its jurisdiction or abusing its discretion.

labor & employmentprocedure

This medical malpractice case arose after Carole Smith was injured in a car accident and received treatment from multiple doctors, including Dr. Elbaor, for a compound ankle fracture; she later sued several providers for alleged negligence that led to permanent disability. Before trial, Smith entered into Mary Carter agreements with some defendants, under which they paid her sums and remained in the case with financial incentives to help her recover from the non-settling defendant. The trial court refused to submit a contributory negligence question to the jury and allowed the agreements to stand, resulting in a large judgment against Dr. Elbaor. The Supreme Court of Texas reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that evidence of Smith's refusal to follow medical instructions supported submitting contributory negligence and that Mary Carter agreements are void as contrary to public policy because they distort the trial process and create biased testimony.

torts & liabilityprocedurehealthcare

This case concerned whether a statutory probate court had subject matter jurisdiction over a lawsuit brought by an estate's independent administrator against the former temporary administrator and its president for negligence, gross negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and violations of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act related to an estate plan. The trial court awarded damages based on jury findings in favor of the plaintiff, but the court of appeals reversed, holding that the probate court lacked jurisdiction because the claims were not sufficiently related to the settlement of the estate. The Texas Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and remanded the case, reasoning that under the 1985 version of Texas Probate Code § 5A(b), statutory probate courts have concurrent jurisdiction with district courts over suits by or against personal representatives of estates.

procedure

This case arose from a products liability suit against Upjohn over its drug Halcion, in which the trial court refused to seal certain discovery documents under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 76a and the Fifth Court of Appeals issued a temporary order limiting public access to exhibits while the Rule 76a appeal was pending. The Dallas Morning News and Public Citizen sought mandamus from the Texas Supreme Court to compel the court of appeals to lift that temporary order and allow immediate public inspection and copying of the trial exhibits. The Supreme Court overruled the motion for leave to file the petition, holding that courts of appeals have statutory authority to issue orders protecting their jurisdiction over pending appeals and that the relators failed to provide a sufficient record to demonstrate an abuse of discretion. The Court noted that without such an order some documents on appeal would become public before the appellate decision, potentially mooting the appeal as to those items.

free speechprocedure