Establishing Gross Negligence Claims In Texas

Negligence claims in Texas relate to some breach or failure of a person or entity such as business to perform its legal duty. We know these claims to typically be negligent actions in tort. Good examples are negligent driving by a drive in an auto accident case, or failure of a store facility to keep the premises safe. There are variations of negligence claims.

General Negligence

To establish a claim for negligence, a plaintiff must prove
(i) the existence of a legal duty,
(ii) a breach of that duty, and
(iii) damages proximately caused by that breach. Kroger Co. v. Elwood, 197 S.W.3d 793, 794 (Tex. 2006).

Gross Negligence

To establish gross negligence, a plaintiff must also prove by clear and convincing evidence two additional elements:
(i) that from the actor's standpoint, the act or omission complained of involved an extreme degree of risk, considering the probability and magnitude of the potential harm to others, and
(ii) that the actor had actual subjective awareness of the risk involved but nevertheless proceeded in conscious indifference of the rights and safety or welfare of others. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 41.003(a)(3) (Vernon 2005); Lee Lewis Constr., Inc. v. Harrison, 70 S.W.3d 778, 785 (Tex. 2001).

Duty

Duty is the threshold inquiry in a negligence claim. Centeq Realty, Inc. v. Siegler, 899 S.W.2d 195, 197 (Tex. 1995). The threshold question or inquiry in a negligence case is whether the defendant owes a legal duty to the plaintiff. If there is no legal duty, liability for negligence cannot exist. See Thapar v. Zezulka, 994 S.W.2d 635, 637 (Tex. 1999).

Standard of Review

The existence of a legal duty is a question of law for the court to decide from the particular facts surrounding the occurrence in question. Military Highway Water Supply Corp. v. Morin, 156 S.W.3d 569, 572 (Tex. 2005). Because the existence of a legal duty is a pure question of law, the standard of revie is a de novo standard of review. Loram Maint. of Way, Inc. v. Ianni, 141 S.W.3d 722, 727 (Tex. App.-El Paso 2004), rev'd on other grounds, 210 S.W.3d 593 (Tex. 2006) (citing El Paso Natural Gas Co. v. Minco Oil & Gas, Inc., 8 S.W.3d 309, 312 (Tex. 1999)).

Applicable Law

To determine whether a defendant is under a legal duty, Texas courts consider several interrelated factors, including the risk, foreseeability, and likelihood of injury, weighed against the social utility of the actor's conduct, the magnitude of the burden of guarding against the injury, and the consequences of placing the burden on the defendant. Bird v. W.C.W., 868 S.W.2d 767, 769 (Tex. 1994); Greater Houston Transp. Co. v. Phillips, 801 S.W.2d 523, 525 (Tex. 1990). Of these factors, the foremost consideration is whether the risk is foreseeable. Greater Houston Transp. Co., 801 S.W.2d at 525. Foreseeability means that an actor, as a person of ordinary intelligence, should have anticipated the dangers that his negligent act created for others. Isbell v. Ryan, 983 S.W.2d 335, 339 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, no pet.). In other words, “there is neither a legal nor a moral obligation to guard against that which cannot be foreseen in the light of common or ordinary experience.” J.R. Beadel & Co. v. De La Garza, 690 S.W.2d 71, 73 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1985, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (quoting Hadaway v. Lone Star Gas Co., 355 S.W.2d 590, 592 (Tex. Civ. App.-Fort Worth 1962, no writ)). Foreseeability is not measured by hindsight, but instead by what the actor knew or should have known at the time of the alleged negligence. Timberwalk Apts. v. Cain, 972 S.W.2d 749, 757 (Tex. 1998).

The Texas Supreme Court uses a two-prong test for foreseeability:

(i) that the injury be of such a general character as might reasonably have been anticipated; and (ii) that the injured party should be so situated with relation to the wrongful act that injury to him or one similarly situated might reasonably have been foreseen. Mellon Mortgage Co. v. Holder, 5 S.W.3d 654, 655 (Tex. 1999) (plurality opinion) (citing Nixon v. Mr. Property Mgmt. Co., 690 S.W.2d 546, 551, (Tex. 1985)).

2-Year Limitations Period on Auto Injury Claims in Texas

As a general rule in Texas, a claim for injuries resulting from an auto accident must be filed within two (2) years of the anniversary date of the date of the accident. The two-year anniversary of the collision is significant; after then, this kind of tort claim would be barred under Texas's two-year statute of limitations. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 16.003(a) (Vernon Supp. 2007).

Tolling Exception to the Rule

Although recovery on most tort actions would be barred after the expiration of two years, an exception to that rule provides that a tolling of the statute of limitations takes place if a party has filed a previous suit in a different court and that action was dismissed because of lack of jurisdiction, provided that the party refiled the suit in a court of proper jurisdiction within sixty days after such dismissal. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 16.064 (Vernon 1997); Clary Corp. v. Smith, 949 S.W.2d 452, 461 (Tex. App.--Fort Worth 1997, writ denied). The cases also note that the statute is to be liberally construed to effectuate its objective.

The Exception to the Exception

However, the tolling provision of Section 16.064 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code does not apply if the initial filing was done with intentional disregard of proper jurisdiction. Parker v. Cumming, 216 S.W.3d 905, 909-10 (Tex. App.--Eastland 2007, pet. denied). Under that exception, if the record establishes intentional disregard and that jurisdiction did not lie in the tribunal in which the proceeding was originally filed, the original lawsuit did not, as a matter of law, serve to toll limitations.