The parties to a contract may agree to resolve any disputes via arbitration, rather than litigation; however, courts can elect not to enforce an arbitration agreement on the grounds that pursuing a claim in arbitration would be “so cost prohibitive that it prevents a...
The Texas Supreme Court recently issued its decision in Albertsons, LLC v. Mohammadi[1], and its decision has some important takeaways for premises liability claims. The case arose out of a slip-and-fall accident that occurred inside a Randalls’ grocery store. It made...
Words matter—especially in jury charges. Embellishing and broadening the definition of an employee can lead to a higher verdict at trial, but it may cost the plaintiff on appeal. Recently, in JNM Express, LLC, et al. v. Mr. and Mrs. Lozano (“JNM Express”), the Texas...
The Texas Workers’ Compensation Act provides mutual benefits to covered employees and subscribing employers. It ensures prompt medical and wage payments to injured employees and offers employers an exclusive remedy defense against lawsuits. However, complications arise when injuries involve subcontractor employees. The case ExxonMobil Corp v. Alvarez clarified that general contractors can extend workers’ compensation coverage to subcontractor employees through written agreements, thus upholding the exclusive remedy defense. This case underscores the importance of clear agreements for employers working with subcontractors.
Discover the ins and outs of enforcing electronic signatures in Texas with our comprehensive guide. Learn about the legal framework under Texas’s Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA), ensuring validity, consent requirements, and security measures. Explore practical tips for businesses to comply with legal standards and safeguard electronic agreements.
Dive into the alarming trend of ‘nuclear verdicts’ sweeping through Texas courts, with staggering financial implications for businesses, particularly in the trucking industry. Explore the factors driving these massive awards and discover proactive strategies to mitigate litigation risk and safeguard corporate interests. Gain invaluable insights into navigating the evolving legal landscape and protecting your bottom line.
Explore the insidious influence of cognitive bias in the legal realm and its profound impact on decision-making processes. From the OJ Simpson trial to jury selection and expert testimony, uncover how these biases shape outcomes and learn effective strategies to mitigate their effects. Dive into our latest blog for invaluable insights into fostering fairness and justice in the legal system.
Recent developments in Texas case law and the Texas Pattern Jury Charges have reshaped the treatment of seatbelt nonuse in personal injury cases. Formerly viewed as a failure to mitigate damages, seatbelt nonuse is now recognized as pre-occurrence negligence, impacting fault allocation. Admissibility of seatbelt evidence depends on its relevance to injuries, determined by the trial court, often necessitating expert testimony. The Romero decision provides guidance on constructing jury charges, distinguishing between violations of seatbelt laws and general negligence. Notably, even children, exempt from statutory responsibility, may be held to age-appropriate standards. Moreover, fault may extend to individuals failing to ensure seatbelt use, including parents and third parties. This shift aims to promote safer behavior while ensuring fairness and accountability in assigning liability for accident-related injuries.
The Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct describe a lawyer’s duty to “zealously assert the client’s position” and to “zealously pursue the client’s interests” both “within the bounds of the law.”[1] Reference to the duty of zealous representation, however,...
The blog post delves into the intricate dynamics of legal battles, particularly the strategic decisions faced by defendants when choosing between state and federal courts. While plaintiffs typically select the court based on familiarity and perceived advantages, defendants find themselves in a dilemma of whether to remove the case to the federal arena. The excerpt introduces the concept of Snap Removal, a tactical maneuver that allows a defendant to shift a case involving a forum defendant to federal court before proper service is initiated.
