Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Case Number: 3:22-cv-01059
Judge: Barbara M. G. Lynn
Court: United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas (Dallas County)
Plaintiff's Attorney: Steve Samples
Defendant's Attorney: Alison Diane Kennamer, Janet Traylor, Ascar H. Lopez
Description: Dallas, Texas plaintiff personal injury lawyer represented Plaintiff who sued Defendant on a negligence theory.
Negligence is a legal concept that refers to a failure to exercise the degree of care that a reasonable person would exercise in a similar situation. In Texas, negligence is a tort, which means that it is a civil wrong that can be remedied by a lawsuit.
To prove negligence, the plaintiff must show that the defendant owed them a duty of care, the defendant breached that duty, the breach was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries, and the plaintiff suffered damages.
Duty of care
The first element of negligence is that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care. This means that the defendant had a legal obligation to act in a way that did not put the plaintiff at risk of harm.
In Texas, the law of negligence recognizes that everyone has a duty of care to others. This means that everyone is expected to act in a reasonable and prudent manner, taking into account the circumstances of the situation.
The duty of care that a defendant owes to a plaintiff will vary depending on the specific facts of the case. For example, a driver owes a higher duty of care to other drivers than they do to pedestrians.
Breach of duty
The second element of negligence is that the defendant breached the duty of care that they owed to the plaintiff. This means that the defendant acted in a way that was unreasonable and put the plaintiff at risk of harm.
In Texas, the standard of care that a defendant must meet is the standard of a reasonable person. This means that the defendant must act in the same way that a reasonable person would act in the same situation.
There are a number of factors that the court will consider when determining whether a defendant has breached their duty of care. These factors include the following:
The nature of the activity that the defendant was engaged in
The foreseeability of the risk of harm
The likelihood of the risk of harm occurring
The gravity of the harm that could occur
The third element of negligence is that the defendant's breach of duty was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries. This means that the defendant's actions were the direct and foreseeable cause of the plaintiff's injuries.
In Texas, the proximate cause of an injury is determined by asking the following question: "But for" the defendant's actions, would the plaintiff have been injured?
If the answer to this question is yes, then the defendant's actions were the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries.
The fourth element of negligence is that the plaintiff suffered damages. This means that the plaintiff suffered some type of harm as a result of the defendant's negligence.
In Texas, damages can include both economic and non-economic losses. Economic losses are those that can be easily quantified, such as medical expenses, lost wages, and property damage. Non-economic losses are those that cannot be easily quantified, such as pain and suffering, emotional distress, and loss of enjoyment of life.
If the plaintiff can prove all four elements of negligence, they may be able to recover damages from the defendant. The amount of damages that the plaintiff is awarded will vary depending on the specific facts of the case.
Here are some additional information about negligence law in Texas:
Texas is a modified comparative negligence state. This means that if the plaintiff is found to be partially at fault for their own injuries, their damages will be reduced by their percentage of fault.
The statute of limitations for negligence claims in Texas is two years. This means that the plaintiff must file their lawsuit within two years of the date of the injury.
If you have been injured as a result of someone else's negligence, you should consult with an attorney to discuss your legal options.
Outcome: 07/24/2023 27 ORDER granting the 26 Motion to Dismiss: Plaintiff George R Wiest, Jr's claims against Defendant Vestas-American Wind Technology, Inc. are DISMISSED with prejudice. All costs are to be borne by the party incurring same. (Ordered by Senior Judge Barbara M. G. Lynn on 7/24/2023) (twd) (Entered: 07/24/2023)