Sam Johnson

This case concerned whether an insurance company's petition to set aside a workers' compensation award by the Industrial Accident Board was timely filed, where the petition arrived at the courthouse mail facility on the final day of the statutory 20-day period but was not delivered to the district clerk's office until the next day. The trial court and court of civil appeals dismissed the suit for want of jurisdiction due to the late filing. The Texas Supreme Court reversed, holding that the petition should be deemed timely filed because the one-day delay resulted solely from an unauthorized instruction by a deputy district clerk to the post office to withhold the second daily mail delivery, a practice unknown to the district clerk; under Texas filing rules, an instrument is considered filed when it reaches the clerk's effective control, and parties cannot be penalized for the clerk's actions that obstruct timely filing.

procedurelabor & employment

This case was a venue appeal in a wrongful death action filed in Henderson County by Leola Carter against William Sommerville & Son, Inc. (a Dallas County resident), Lloyd Goins, and Doyle Ray Hundley after her husband was killed in a highway accident involving a tractor-trailer driven by an employee of Goins, who lacked the required operating permit under the Texas Motor Carrier Act. The trial court overruled Sommerville's plea of privilege to transfer the case to Dallas County, but the court of civil appeals reversed and ordered the transfer. The Texas Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no evidence Sommerville knowingly procured, aided, or abetted a violation of the Act and that such a violation does not constitute negligence per se sufficient to establish venue under Subdivision 9a of Article 1995.

proceduretorts & liabilitycriminal lawbusiness & regulatory

The case Gutierrez v. Collins involved a personal injury suit brought in Texas by one Texas resident against another for an automobile accident that occurred in Mexico, with the plaintiff seeking damages under either Texas negligence law or, alternatively, Mexican law for moral reparations. The trial court dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction under the dissimilarity doctrine, and the court of civil appeals affirmed, based on the traditional conflict-of-laws rule of lex loci delicti requiring application of Mexican substantive law. The Texas Supreme Court reversed those judgments, ruling that neither the lex loci delicti rule nor the dissimilarity doctrine remained valid for common-law tort actions. The court reasoned that the relevant statute (Article 4678) was merely permissive rather than mandatory for negligence claims and did not preclude Texas courts from adjudicating the dispute. The case was remanded to the trial court for proceedings on the merits.

proceduretorts & liability

This case concerns a beneficiary's suit to recover proceeds from three $1,000 life insurance policies issued on his mother's life within months of her death from heart and related conditions. The policies contained "good health" clauses, and the insurer later obtained a release from the beneficiary in exchange for premium refunds on two of the policies. After a jury trial awarded the beneficiary the proceeds plus penalties and fees, the court of civil appeals reversed with a take-nothing judgment; the Texas Supreme Court affirmed that result as to the release on two policies but reversed and remanded for a new trial on the third policy due to evidence that agents may have waived the good health provisions by issuing coverage despite knowing the insured's illness. The core reasoning addressed whether the release was supported by consideration, whether special issues on avoidance were required, and whether factual disputes on waiver required jury resolution.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case concerned a dispute over the scope of an easement across the Storms' land in Kerr County, Texas, originally granted to Mrs. Mills in connection with the sale of a house and ten acres and later partially assigned to defendants Tuck, Smith, Walters, and Graham, who built a road on both the improved and previously unimproved portions of the easement. The Stormses sued to cancel the easement as a cloud on title and for injunctive relief, arguing that the defendants' road construction exceeded the grant. The trial court upheld the easement under both the written instrument and estoppel in pais; the court of civil appeals affirmed solely on estoppel grounds. The Texas Supreme Court reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded for entry of a proper judgment, reasoning that estoppel by silence requires more than mere observation without protest and does not automatically expand easement rights beyond the grant when the parties' contacts were limited and no fraud or fiduciary duty was shown.

property

This case involves a personal injury lawsuit brought by Bernard Dodd against Texas Farm Products Company for injuries he sustained while working on Texas Farm's premises to loosen and move compacted sulfate using dynamite. A jury found Texas Farm negligent and awarded Dodd $86,000 in damages, but the trial court granted the defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and the court of appeals affirmed on the ground that there was no evidence to support the negligence finding. The Texas Supreme Court reversed, holding that there was some evidence in the record to support the jury's findings. The court therefore rendered judgment for Dodd on the jury verdict.

torts & liability