Oscar H. Mauzy

In Hill v. Winn Dixie Texas, Inc., a customer sued a grocery store for negligence after slipping and falling on a cookie in an aisle where a store employee had been stocking shelves. The trial court instructed the jury on unavoidable accident, and the jury found no negligence by either party, resulting in a take-nothing judgment that the court of appeals affirmed. The Texas Supreme Court held that the instruction was improper because there was no evidence that the fall was caused by a nonhuman condition such as an act of God or environmental factor, rather than the parties' conduct. Nevertheless, the Court concluded that submission of the instruction did not constitute reversible error under the facts of the case and denied the petition for writ of error.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved a discovery dispute in a shareholder fraud lawsuit against Granada Corporation arising from its 1985 takeover of Immuno Modulation Laboratories Inc. The underlying claims alleged that Granada fraudulently induced shareholders to exchange their stock for royalty certificates that later lost value after asset transfers. The trial court issued a protective order shielding certain documents, but the court of appeals directed production of four inadvertently disclosed memoranda (finding waiver of privilege) and 62 additional documents under the crime-fraud exception. The Texas Supreme Court denied Granada's petition for mandamus relief, ruling that the inadvertent production waived attorney-client and work-product privileges and that the documents related to a prima facie case of fraud sufficient to overcome privilege claims.

procedurebusiness & regulatorytorts & liability

In Besing v. Smith, a legal malpractice suit arising from the defendant law firms' representation of the plaintiff in an underlying action against his former fiancée, the trial court granted summary judgment to the firms on the ground that the claims were barred by the two-year statute of limitations, and the court of appeals affirmed. While the plaintiff's motion for rehearing was pending in the court of appeals, this court decided Hughes v. Mahaney & Higgins, which held that limitations in legal malpractice actions arising from litigated claims are tolled until all appeals in the underlying suit are exhausted. The court overruled the motion for rehearing without remanding for application of the Hughes rule, and the dissenting justice reasoned that the new rule applies retroactively to pending cases as in Aduddell and Gulf Coast, that the court could take judicial notice of the underlying judgment and appeal dates, and that the defendants had failed to meet their summary judgment burden to establish when the cause of action accrued.

proceduretorts & liability

This case concerned whether a subcontractor's mechanic’s lien, filed under the Texas Property Code, extended to a portion of land that was sold after construction began but before the lien was perfected. The Texas Supreme Court held that Juan Valdez properly perfected his lien on the entire 7.9-acre tract, including the 0.8-acre portion later acquired by Diamond Shamrock, and reversed the lower courts' decisions enjoining the sale of that portion. The court reasoned that the term "lot" refers to the undivided tract as it existed in the deed records when work commenced, and the lien relates back to the date visible construction began, which predated the sale to Diamond Shamrock.

property

In MBank El Paso, N.A. v. Sanchez, the case concerned a bank's use of an independent contractor to repossess a vehicle after the borrower's default on a note, during which the repossessors continued despite the borrower's protests, towed the car at high speed with her inside, and left her locked in a fenced yard with a guard dog. The Texas Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals' reversal of summary judgment for the bank, ruling that section 9.503 of the Texas Business and Commerce Code imposes a nondelegable duty on secured creditors to repossess collateral without breaching the peace. The court reasoned that this statutory duty, grounded in public safety and the avoidance of force or violence, cannot be shifted to an independent contractor under principles from Restatement (Second) of Torts section 424, which holds parties liable for a contractor's failure to provide required safeguards when the duty is imposed by law.

business & regulatorypropertytorts & liability

This case concerned whether a mother could recover attorney's fees from the Texas Department of Human Services after the agency removed her two young children based on unproven allegations of abuse. The trial court found the agency's actions frivolous, unreasonable, and without foundation, and awarded fees under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code chapter 105; the court of appeals reversed, holding that the statute applied only to the filing of a frivolous lawsuit and not to the agency's conduct during the proceedings. The Supreme Court of Texas reversed the court of appeals and reinstated the fee award, reasoning that the trial court's findings satisfied the statutory requirements and that section 105.002 permits recovery when an agency prosecutes a cause of action in a frivolous manner. The underlying facts involved the Department's failure to return the children after multiple judicial determinations that the evidence was insufficient, including an ex parte denial by a district judge and a directed verdict by a family court master.

family lawprocedurecivil rights