Nabors Well Services, Ltd. v. Romero
2015 Tex. LEXIS 142, 58 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 347, 456 S.W.3d 553 (2015)
Rule of Law:
Relevant evidence of a plaintiff's pre-occurrence, injury-causing conduct, such as the failure to use a seat belt, is admissible for the purpose of apportioning responsibility under Texas's proportionate-responsibility statute, as the statute requires fact-finders to consider all conduct causing or contributing to cause 'in any way' a plaintiff's damages.
Facts:
- A Nabors Well Services, Ltd. transport truck and a Chevrolet Suburban, carrying eight occupants, were traveling southbound on U.S. Highway 285 in rural West Texas.
- As the transport truck slowed to make a left turn, Martin Soto, the Suburban's driver, pulled into the opposing traffic lane and attempted to pass the truck.
- The transport truck began its left turn, clipping the Suburban, which then careened off the highway and rolled multiple times.
- Aydee Romero, an adult passenger, was killed in the accident, and Martin Soto, his wife Esperanza Soto, and five children (Esperanza, Guadalupe, Marielena Soto, and Edgar and Saul Romero) suffered injuries.
- Evidence was conflicting regarding which occupants of the Suburban were using seat belts and which were ejected from the vehicle.
- There was also conflicting evidence about whether the transport truck used a turn signal for a sufficient duration and whether Soto could have passed the truck within the legal passing zone.
Procedural Posture:
- The Soto and Romero families (plaintiffs) sued Nabors Well Services, Ltd. and its truck driver (defendants) in a trial court.
- At trial, Nabors sought to introduce expert testimony and other evidence regarding the Suburban occupants' nonuse of seat belts and its causal link to their injuries/death.
- The trial court excluded all evidence of seat-belt nonuse, citing the precedent of Carnation Co. v. Wong.
- The trial court also separately excluded portions of Nabors' expert testimony on Robinson grounds, finding the expert unqualified to opine on injury causation from seat-belt nonuse.
- The jury found Nabors 51% and Soto 49% responsible for the accident, awarding the families just over $2.3 million.
- The court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment, based solely on the Carnation prohibition of seat-belt evidence, and did not address the Robinson exclusion of expert testimony.
- The Supreme Court of Texas granted review to consider the continued viability of Carnation after the Legislature repealed its statutory ban on seat-belt evidence.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Texas's proportionate-responsibility statute allow for the admission of evidence regarding a plaintiff's pre-occurrence, injury-causing conduct, such as the failure to use a seat belt, for the purpose of apportioning responsibility in civil lawsuits?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Brown
Yes, Texas's proportionate-responsibility statute allows for the admission of evidence regarding a plaintiff's pre-occurrence, injury-causing conduct, such as the failure to use a seat belt, for the purpose of apportioning responsibility in civil lawsuits. The Court explicitly overrules its prior precedents, Kerby v. Abilene Christian College (1973) and Carnation Co. v. Wong (1974), which prohibited such evidence. The Court's reasoning is rooted in the significant changes to Texas's system for apportioning fault in negligence cases. Prior to 1973, Texas used an 'all-or-nothing' contributory negligence system, where any fault by the plaintiff barred recovery. Kerby and Carnation were common-law doctrines designed to ameliorate this harsh system by drawing a 'sharp distinction' between negligence that caused an accident and negligence that merely increased or added to the extent of damages, making seat-belt nonuse inadmissible for reducing recovery. However, the Legislature has since adopted a comparative-responsibility (now proportionate-responsibility) framework in Chapter 33 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code, particularly Sections 33.003(a) and 33.011(4). These statutes direct the fact-finder to determine the 'percentage of responsibility' for each person for 'causing or contributing to cause in any way' 'personal injury' or 'death.' The Court found that 'in any way' means there are no restrictions on assigning responsibility as long as the conduct contributed to the injury or death, regardless of whether it caused the initial occurrence. This statutory language effectively eliminates the 'sharp distinction' previously held. The Court also noted the societal shift regarding seat-belt use, which is now legally required and widely adopted, distinguishing the current context from 1974. The Legislature's repeal of the statutory ban on seat-belt evidence in 2003, without replacing it, revived the common-law Carnation rule, but the Court determined that the Carnation rule is an anachronism incompatible with modern proportionate-responsibility principles. The Court clarifies that general rules of evidence (relevance, expert testimony, Rule 403) will govern admissibility, and a single apportionment question suffices for juries to consider both occurrence-causing and injury-causing conduct.
Analysis:
This case fundamentally alters negligence litigation in Texas by allowing juries to consider a plaintiff's role in exacerbating their own injuries, even if they did not cause the accident. It aligns Texas tort law with the modern trend of comparative fault principles and brings the legal system in line with widely accepted public policy regarding seat-belt use. This ruling will likely lead to defendants more frequently attempting to introduce evidence of a plaintiff's pre-occurrence, injury-causing conduct, such as seatbelt nonuse, potentially reducing damage awards for plaintiffs who fail to take reasonable safety precautions. It reinforces the idea that an injured party has a responsibility for their own safety, a concept previously limited in Texas tort law.
