TORT
LAW
SPRING
2020
Pruski
v. Garcia, W.L.
499768; Lexis 50 (Tex. 2020)
Two Statutory
Provisions on Point with Different Standards: At issue
was the applicability of two statutes prohibiting livestock owners from
allowing their animals to roam. Both found in Tex. Agric. Code Chapter 143,
Section 143.102 prohibits “knowingly permit[ting]” such roaming, while Section
143.074 provides that in counties that have enacted stock laws, “a person may
not permit” roaming. It was alleged: “a driver on a state highway collide[d]
with an escaped bull in a county with a stock law . . . .”
Held: Reversed. The court of appeals applied the latter section
and allowed recovery by the driver with no required showing of knowing
permission to roam. The Court noted that Section 143.107 specifies that Section
143.102 “prevails to the extent of any conflict with another provision of this
chapter.” Hence, the heightened
mental-state provision would be the correct standard to apply in a livestock
accident on a state highway. The Court therefore reversed in part the court of
appeals opinion and reinstated summary judgment for the defendant.
Glenn v. Leal, W.L. 854922; Lexis 141 (Tex. 2020)
At issue in this
health care liability case was the applicability of a willful and wanton
negligence standard under Tex. Civ. Prac. &
Remedies Code Section 74.153, which applies in the provision of emergency
medical care. The defendant, Dr. Glenn, delivered plaintiff Leal’s baby with
some apparent haste when the baby’s shoulder lodged within the mother’s pelvis
while simultaneously experiencing the umbilical cord’s wrapping around the
baby’s neck. The baby suffered permanent injury from the hasty delivery. Leals sued Glenn, and at trial, the trial court denied
Glenn’s motion for a directed verdict and refused his requested jury
instructions as to whether emergency medical care had been provided and whether
he had acted with willful and wanton negligence. The jury returned a verdict
for the Leals under an ordinary negligence standard.
The trial court denied Glenn’s motion for JNOV. Held: Reversed and
remand for new trial. The court of appeals relied on a 2018 Second Court of
Appeals decision that refused to apply the willful and wanton standard to cases
that did not originate in the emergency department before moving to the
obstetrical unit. However, in that case, this Court then reversed, construing
the statutory language and applicability of the willful and wanton standard as
requiring origin of care in the emergency department only for care later
completed in the surgical suite, but NOT requiring that same origin of care for
care completed in the obstetrical unit. (See Texas Health Presbyterian
Hospital of Denton v. D.A., 569 S.W.3d 126 (Tex. 2018)). Citing its
decision in Texas Health, the Court held that the court of appeals erred
in its application of the section 74.153 standard. Therefore, as the error went
directly to the jury instruction that resulted in the verdict against Dr.
Glenn, the Court reversed the court of appeals and remanded for a new trial.
Website designed and developed by Daniel Hofheinz