A Tragic Accident and a Continuing Legal Battle
Michelle Gaines was the most popular girl at Palestine High School. The athletic, dark-haired 19-year-old was preparing to head off to Hill College on a soccer scholarship.
Her plans ended on June 11, 2006, when an 18-wheeler hauling an oil rig careened through a red light and crashed into her 2000 Buick.
“It’s as if my daughter died that day,” Mike Gaines said, “but God gave me back another one that I love and cherish just as much as the first one.”
The truck smashed the sedan into a mangled crescent and left Gaines with a broken pelvis and ...
Comments (41)
Jim Vance
A truly appalling travesty of justice, and one more example of how the judicial system in Texas has become a wholly-owned subsidiary of business interests.
Tucano Fulano
How little did it take to buy off those who overturned the lower court's award?
Debbie Mason via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Anyone remember when Bush set limits on how much we could get in TX. ?
Karen Spivey-Cummings via Texas Tribune on Facebook
All tort reform does is take away your constitutional rights to a trial by a jury of your peers and then if they rule in your favor, a judge overturns the jury decision.
Karen Spivey-Cummings via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Pro-business, anti-citizen law and courts.
Kelley Masters via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Seems to me that it's a pretty big stretch go to after the guy who's only marginally involved, but is the only one able to pay the judgment.
Merryl Redding via Texas Tribune on Facebook
My take: Perhaps $8 million is extreme and will destroy Mr Pritchett's life. A reasonable amount, her hospital expenses, care, comfort and rehabilitation, should certainly be provided. More often than not, I believe, these judgments wouldn't be avoided, challenged or overturned if they weren't so outrageous.
Robert Guest via Texas Tribune on Facebook
That's tort reform in action. In Texas juries can vote to kill a person, and it won't get a serious review for factual sufficiency, but if a jury votes to hold a civil defendant financially liable our appellate courts bend over backwards to throw the judgment out.
Scott Clearman
On behalf of Michelle, I thank Professor Steven Goode of Austin for his briefing before the Texas Supreme Court. Brian Walsh did a fantastic job of preparing and trying the case, along with Dick Swift – both from Palestine. And finally, special thanks to Brad Rock Reagan of Austin who jumped in to help at trial and thereafter.
Scott M. Clearman, Lead Counsel for Miss Gaines.
Bambi Clark via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Tort reform over people's lives.
Karen Spivey-Cummings via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Merryl, generally speaking the jury award is always reduced by consent/mediation of both parties. But judges overturning a jury decision is wrong. That is pretty much what happened in the McDonald's Hot coffee lawsuit. Are you aware that the woman burned was only asking for 20K? McDonald's said no so she had no other alternative but to sue. Btw, that law suit was NOT a frivolous lawsuit.
Christine Lund
How can we take back the reins in this state? So many things wrong, so little time to fix them. Who were the legislators that took away the power of the people? We must identify the people who are puppets for money and vote them out. Our judicial system has become a for profit industry.
Karen Spivey-Cummings via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Judge reduced the original jury award in this one too rather than overturn the jury award. Get the facts NOT fiction/myths. http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2010/12/mcdonalds-hot-coffee-movie-to-debut-at-sundance.html
Karen Spivey-Cummings via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Funny, when someone you love or you are the victim, they somehow aren't frivolous anymore. It amazes me that the GOP/Tea Party scream personal responsibility/accountability yet do not support holding business/corporations, big pharma, or insurance companies accountable for their actions. Two sets of rules. One for citizens and another for corporate america/businesses.
Bambi Clark via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Too many people believe the spin rather than facts. Those pesky facts just get in the way of corporations screwing us.
Karen Spivey-Cummings via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Yep, more info. http://www.texaswatch.org/2012/01/report-decade-long-review-shows-texas-supreme-court-is-activist-ideological/
Dave Mundy via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Nice to see all the personal injury lawyers sounding off. Folks, whether y'all like it or not, exorbitant personal-injury jury awards are crippling this country's ability to do business. That said, I *WOULD* like to see this case before the Texas Supreme Court, because of the circumstances indicating the man destroyed evidence and/or used bribes.
Karen Spivey-Cummings via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Actually, I misspoke. Here is what the U.S. Constitution says. Jury of Peers
"People often say "I have a right to have my case heard by a jury of my peers!" when there is no such right in the Constitution. The Constitution does take up the issue of juries, however. It is the nature of the jury which is not in the Constitution. In Article 3, Section 2, the Constitution requires that all criminal trials be heard by a jury. It also specifies that the trial will be heard in the state the crime was committed. The 6th Amendment narrows the definition of the jury by requiring it to be "impartial." Finally, the 7th Amendment requires that certain federal civil trials guarantee a jury trial if the amount exceeds twenty dollars.
Note that no where is a jury "of peers" guaranteed. This is important for some historical and contemporary reasons. Historically, the notion of a peer is one of social standing — in particular, in a monarchy such as the one the United States grew up from, commoners would never stand in judgement of lords and barons. Along these same lines, since suffrage and jury service have always been closely tied (and in the beginnings of the United States it was typical for only white, male, property-owners to be allowed the vote), any combination of gender, race, and economic status would be judged by only one kind of jury, hardly by "peers."
Today, the American ideal dictates that we are all peers of one another, that regardless of gender, race, religion, social status, or any other division (except age), we are all equal. In this ideal, since we are all peers, a guarantee of a jury of ones peers would be redundant. While some argue with this ideal, it is the most democratic way to approach the subject. Juries need only be impartial, and not made up of one's peers, else the jury system would be unworkable." http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#jury
Bambi Clark via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Lawyer? ROFL
Mike Moeller via Texas Tribune on Facebook
@Karen, I thought the 7th Amendment prevented the re-examination of facts in civil cases. The irony of course is the progressive wing of the US Supreme Court voted to apply limits under the 8th Amendment to punitive damages.
Karen Spivey-Cummings via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Dave, I am not a personal injury lawyer. I am a nurse/RN. Injured victims do not ask for exorbitant amounts initially. The insurance company/business/entity at fault declines/refuses to pay ANYTHING and that is when the injured victims have no choice but to hire an attorney to hold the insurance company/business/entity accountable for their actions. The insurance companies can sure take their clients premiums but when their client is at fault, they don't want to pay. You may be a victim someday. Studies have clearly proved that tort reform does NOT reduce health insurance premiums or costs nor does it increase physicians in the states that pass tort reform. All tort reform does is protect insurance companies/businesses/entities from being held accountable for their actions.
Karen Spivey-Cummings via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Mike, you might find this interesting. http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/business/2009/april/Supreme-Court-Ends-Phillip-Morris-Bid-to-Avoid-Punitive-Damages.html
Karen Spivey-Cummings via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Mike, here is this too. 14th Amendment. http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1995/1995_94_896/
Brian Stansbury
If the Supreme Court does not review the appellate court decision, the precedent from this case will be clear: when faced with potential litigation liability, bribe witnesses and destroy evidence to mitigate damages or avoid liability all together. This is not about tort reform; rather this addresses whether we are going to have a system of justice at all. If a litigant can bribe witnesses, destroy evidence, and walk away w/o any repercussions, then we are no better than some banana republic, third-rate dictatorship. Texas can do better.
Karen Spivey-Cummings via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Mike, this is also interesting. http://constitutions.vlex.com/vid/seventh-amendment-civil-trials-295135
John Cobarruvias via Texas Tribune on Facebook
In the words of Governor Rick Perry: Welcome to Texas, bitch.
John Cobarruvias via Texas Tribune on Facebook
That is sad. Real sad. If that happened to my kids, I probably would take the law into my own hands. This state protects those with money and those who donate to republican judges. No one really understands just how bad it is until they are in the same position as this young girl.
Rudy Gonzales
This story is what bring to mind the fallacy of Rick Perry's ad welcoming business to Texas. The Texas tort system is geared towards and for business's. Courts, from small claims to the Supreme Court, are designed and geared to limit or scare less fortunate into submission. In all cases, greedy lawyers smile and visit amongst themselves as they will get paid no matter which side they are on. Big money, business and corporations with unlimited funds will hire the very best to do their dirty work of first intimidation and then to garnish or seek retribution for their buyers. In many cases, non-lawyered defendants will get rail roaded. In small claims court there is no tract in unenforceable judgements. There is no efficiency in courts and excessive time is wasted. The only way to fix this travesty is to completely change the mix in Austin.
Sheri Bennett Wagner via Texas Tribune on Facebook
very sad. the supreme court will probably mess this up too.
Scott Clearman
Re: Brian Stansbury's comment.
I agree with your thoughts. Nevertheless, cannot a plaintiff now "bribe witnesses, destroy evidence" and walk away with a judgment? Once the evil is out, can it be contained?
No matter your view of the overall court system, it is important that witnesses tell the truth and that evidence remains as evidence (meaning it reflects what occurred). I hope the Texas Supreme Court will join the other 49 and 1/2 states that consider “consciousness of guilt” as probative evidence. The 1/2 exists because the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the Texas Supreme Court’s co-equal court, does consider “consciousness of guilt” as probative evidence. The Texas Supreme Court is the missing 1/2.
Mark Perlmutter
After a decision like this, what incentive does a corporate defendant have to ever tell the truth? Why have these courts failed to follow the instruction that they've authorized for juries: that they may infer that evidence destroyed would have been harmful to the spoliator. This is yet another tragedy, like Shell v. Ross, where the Supreme Court so far has allowed corporate fraud feasors to profit from their lies.
Chris Bell
What a heartbreaking story. Maybe some day, people wake up in Texas and realize what has happened to our system of justice. The jury spoke. That used to mean something.
William Olson
Brutal situation. But just because someone is clearly wronged, and clearly deserves payment from those who wronged them, it doesn't mean they're also entitled to money from whatever deep pocket is tangentially involved with the case. I read the opinion in this case, and its short, to the point, and reasonable. I can't know if it's correct having not attended the trial, but it's easy to imagine a jury getting overwhelmed and coming to a verdict based on emotion rather than the evidence. A jury verdict shouldn't be overturned lightly, but when there's zero evidence that someone is liable, that's one of those occasions where it should happen.
Bill Lewis
Pritchett may be only "marginally involved," but he is certainly more involved than Michelle.
William Olson
"Pritchett may be only 'marginally involved,' but he is certainly more involved than Michelle"
That's true, but that's not how we determine liability in this country. We're a country of law, not of men, which means we don't get to throw away the law on a whim because our emotion demands it.
Maybe Texas could pass a law that requires every injury loss to be compensated by whichever millionaire is closest to the events.
Sherry Corlett
Has anyone ever wondered......What is wrong with our country? The people that really need the help don't get it.
And to all, this is just a short summary of what devastation this has done to the family. You have to walk in their shoes! God Bless them, and hopefully this is resolved to help Michelle with her care.
Casey Bennett via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Sad outcome to a horribly tragic accident. The lawyers in the case should have done a better job going after the other two defendants. Before anyone tries to chop off my head,,,,,,,I would be just as pissed as the family involved. It was an accident,,,,negligence on the part of the driver for sure, but not necessarily the owner of the rig, or the yard it was headed to.
David Spratt
When operating a commercial vehicle you are an agent of the carrier and by extension they are equally liable. In this case it seems as if the driver did not hold a valid commercial license and was operating the vehicle in violation of the law at the direction of the owner and or carrier. DOT violations are placed first on the driver and then fall onto the carrier as well.
The receiver is not responsible for anything in transit until they actually take possession of the shipment.I was not there ,,, nor anyone else commenting and advocating the only person having the means pays. Apparently the attorney's for the plaintiff did not prove a nexus between the owner, driver and receiver.
Maybe the system did work as intended , maybe not? It seems there is more emotion here than reason.
Justice is not perfect, but assuming just because someone needs and wants,,, that the closest person available with means should provide is just wrong.
Where was their insurance for owning or transporting this rig? Be aware there are plenty of people driving commercial vehicles that should not be. Many Illegals hold commercial drivers licenses or are driving without them, and if you are hit by one the insurance will not pay since the carrier hired an unqualified driver. Same as if you allowed an unlicensed driver to drive your car. A commercial license is not as hard to get as one might think.
Scott Clearman
William Olson:
You obviously are smart. So why don't you comment on the evidence that the jury heard? You will note that it had nothing to do with who could or could not pay.
Please see http://www.clearmanprebeg.com/documents/Pages-from-Gaines-Merits-Brief.pdf. And, if you have more time, please see http://www.clearmanprebeg.com/documents/Gaines-Reply-Brief.pdf.
There were deep pockets to be sure – Pritchett had pockets deep enough to pay a witness $96,000 to lie and destroy evidence. Pritchett has pockets deep enough to make up evidence.
After you read these materials, say why you stand by your position. If you find yourself mistaken, admit so and be recognized as all of us human – flawed. Otherwise, just disappear into the internet vapor.
Roger Delagarza
Absolutely tragic this family deserves justice in this case it would need to be medical and financial support enough to give her all the care she will need. I would hope the judge had some empathy and think about such a tragedy God forbid, happen to one of his own. not saying I am in favor of 8 million but more than a few thousand.
MARCUS PENLAND
I am confused here. I just read the 40 comments and seems like there are some smart people, giving their opinion.. I am not well educated but I need for someone to explain
Why did the Texas Supreme Court refuse to hear This Case?
Does anyone know why and are the Judges on the High Court of Texas Republicans by chance?
If anyone know please post ....then I will have more to say.