Nabors Well Services, Ltd. v. Romero
456 S.W.3d 553 · Texas Supreme Court · 2015
Facts
A collision between a transport truck and a Suburban resulted in injuries and a fatality, leading the plaintiffs to sue Nabors. Nabors attempted to introduce expert testimony and other evidence regarding the plaintiffs' failure to use seat belts to apportion responsibility. The trial court excluded this evidence based on the precedent of *Carnation Co. v. Wong*, and the court of appeals affirmed.
Issue
The central issue is whether evidence of a plaintiff's failure to use a seat belt is admissible for the purpose of apportioning responsibility in civil lawsuits. Specifically, the Court considered if its long-standing common-law prohibition on such evidence, established in *Carnation Co. v. Wong*, should still stand in light of changes to Texas's proportionate responsibility statute and modern societal norms.
Holding
The Court overruled its prior precedent prohibiting seat belt evidence and held that relevant evidence of seat belt use or non-use is admissible for apportioning responsibility in civil lawsuits. The judgment of the court of appeals was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Rule
Under Texas's proportionate responsibility statute, fact-finders must consider all conduct that "caused or contributed to cause in any way" the harm for which recovery is sought, including a plaintiff's pre-occurrence, injury-causing conduct like failure to use a seat belt. This statutory mandate abolishes the common-law distinction between occurrence-causing and injury-causing negligence, allowing relevant seat belt evidence to be admitted if it can be shown to have caused or contributed to the plaintiff's injuries.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.