The Dallas Court of Appeals recently held (again) that the improper denial of a motion for leave to designate a responsible third party under Chapter 33 of the Civil Practice & Remedies Codes is subject to review by mandamus. The case arose from a collision between a crane truck and a bus. Plaintiff was a
chapter 33
Mandamus is Proper When Leave Denied to Join Responsible Third Parties
By Byron Henry on
Posted in Opinions & Judgments
The Dallas Court of Appeals recently weighed in (again?) on whether a trial court’s erroneous ruling regarding designation of a responsible third party is subject to mandamus. In this case, the trial court denied relator’s motion to designate a responsible third party. The trial court did not allow relator to replead. A divided panel held…
Vicarious liability under Chapter 33
By Mike Northrup on
Posted in Opinions & Judgments
The Dallas Court of Appeals has explained how to submit jury questions for negligence of employees for whose conduct employers may be held vicariously liable.
In Janga v. Colombrito, two defendant doctors appealed an adverse jury verdict and complained that the trial court had not submitted the liability of two nurses as part of…
CPRC 33.004(e) not applicable to vicariously liable defendants
By Byron Henry on
Posted in Opinions & Judgments
The Houston (First) Court of Appeals recently held that section 33.004(e) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code does revive claims against defendants whose liability is solely vicarious.
Section 33.004(e) allows plaintiffs to join as defendants those designated as responsible third parties notwithstanding the applicable statute of limitations. Plaintiffs in this case filed suit against Wells Fargo…