The Texas Supreme Court recently overturned longstanding
precedent precluding a defendant from arguing that the plaintiff’s failure to
wear a seatbelt contributed to the injuries she suffered in an automobile
accident. A common sense ruling and a long time in coming – good news for
defense lawyers to be sure. But, I defend medical device manufacturers,
why do I care?
Here’s why. The Court announced a major change in the
application of Texas’ proportionate responsibility statute.
Traditionally, Texas law drew a sharp distinction between conduct that caused
an occurrence and conduct that caused the injury resulting from that occurrence
holding that the plaintiff’s recovery could be reduced by the first but not the
second. While this distinction occurs in many cases, seat belt usage is a
classic example. Failing to wear a seat belt will not cause an accident,
but it can make the injuries from the accident much worse. Thus, under
Texas law as it had been applied in the past, the plaintiff’s recovery could
not be reduced by his or her failure to wear a seatbelt and the jury would not
hear that evidence. This has now changed.
Recognizing that the distinction between conduct that causes
occurrences and conduct that causes injuries was a vestige “of our defunct
contributory-negligence scheme,” the Court held that the jury must consider
evidence of the plaintiff’s pre-occurrence, injury-causing conduct. The
Court’s holding will also result in a change to the jury question on
proportionate responsibility. Instead of inquiring into responsibility
for the occurrence, the question will now inquire into responsibility for the
injury. A subtle, but likely important distinction.
The case is Nabors Well Services, Ltd. v. Romero, No.
13-0136 and a copy of the opinion may be found here.