 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Law v. Gulf Coast Gunite3/23/2000
In this wrongful death case, Leola Law, Christi Law, and Gladys Law, as Next Friend of Charline Law and Sharline Law (collectively, the "Laws") appeal a summary judgment granted in favor of Gulf Coast Gunite, Inc. ("Gulf Coast") on the grounds that the action was not barred by res judicata or the statute of limitations. We affirm in part and reverse and remand in part.
Background
In 1983, Charles Ray Law ("Charles"), a Gulf Coast employee, had traveled to Louisiana to work on a project for Gulf Coast. While driving back to Texas, he fell asleep, collided with a tractor-trailer, and died from his injuries. In 1985, his widow, Gladys Law, filed a claim individually and on behalf of her four minor children against GulfCoast's workers' compensation insurance carrier to recover death benefits (the "workers' compensation action"). At trial, the jury found that Charles's death did not occur while he was in the course of his employment. In accordance with the jury verdict, the trial court entered a take-nothing judgment.
The Laws filedthis lawsuit in November of 1996, alleging that Gulf Coast was negligent and grossly negligent in overworking Charles and then directing him to return to Texas while physically exhausted. Gulf Coast filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the Laws' claims were barred by res judicata, based on the take-nothing judgment in the workers' compensation action, and by the statute of limitations. The trial court granted summary judgment without stating the ground(s) on which it was based.
Standard of Review
A summary judgment may be granted if the summary judgment evidence shows that, except as to the amount of damages, there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the issues expressly set out in the motion or response. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 166a(c). Summary judgment may be granted if a defendant disproves at least one element of each of the plaintiff's claims or establishes all elements of an affirmative defense to each claim. See American Tobacco Co., Inc. v Grinnell, 951 S.W.2d 420, 425 (Tex. 1997). In reviewing a summary judgment, we take as true all evidence favorable to the non-movant and indulge every reasonable inference and resolve any doubts in the non-movant's favor. See Rhone-Poulenc, Inc. v. Steel, 997 S.W.2d 217, 223 (Tex. 1999). When a summary judgment does not specify the grounds relied upon, the reviewing court must affirm it if any grounds asserted in the motion for summary judgment are meritorious. See Bradley v. State ex rel. White, 990 S.W.2d 245, 247 (Tex. 1999).
Statute of Limitations
The Laws' firsttwo points of error contend that the trial court erred in granting Gulf Coast's motion for summary judgment on limitations because: (1) the statute of limitations had been suspended due to the legal disability of the Laws; and (2) the Laws' claims were not barred by the filing of an action by their mother during their period of legal disability. The parties agree that for any of the Laws who were below the age of majority at the time of Charles's death, the applicable statutes of limitations would expire two years after they reached the age of majority. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. ยง 16.001(a)(1), (b) (Vernon Supp. 2000). Thus, limitations would bar the claims of any of the Laws who had reached the age of twenty by the time this lawsuit was filed on November 1, 1996.
At that time, Christi, born June 19, 1976, was approximately five months beyond her twentieth birthday; Leola, born April 23, 1978, was eighteen; and Charline and Sharline, born March 8, 1984, were each twelve. Therefore, o
Page 1 2 3 Texas Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|