 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Fulgham v. FFE Transportation Services7/12/2005
Before Justices Wright, Bridges, and Richter
This product liability and negligence case is on remand from the Supreme Court of Texas. That Court disagreed with our remand of both claims to the trial court for further proceedings. Holding that the trial court correctly granted directed verdict in favor of FFE with respect to the product liability claim, the Supreme Court has instructed us to review the issues of spoliation and exclusion of expert witness testimony, which we did not reach on original submission. Having done so, we have determined that the trial court properly granted directed verdict in favor of FFE with respect to the negligence claim. We affirm the trial court's judgment.
BACKGROUND
Larry Fulgham was injured when a trailer owned by FFE Transportation Services, Inc . broke loose from the tractor that he was driving. Larry and his wife Debra brought suit against FFE based on the theory that the bolts holding the upper coupler assembly to the base rail of the trailer broke because they were rusted . The Fulghams claimed that FFE was negligent in failing to timely inspect, maintain, and service the trailer. The Fulghams also alleged strict product liability because FFE introduced a defective product into the stream of commerce pursuant to a "lease."
At the conclusion of the Fulgham's case, FFE orally moved for directed verdict. FFE asserted that there was no evidence to support the negligence claim, specifically arguing that the Fulghams had failed to present the necessary expert testimony to establish the industry standard of care. As to the strict liability claim, FFE asserted that there was no evidence that it had placed the trailer into the stream of commerce. T he trial court granted FFE's motion for directed verdict with respect to both claims, specifically finding that expert testimony was required to establish the standard of care with respect to negligence. The court entered a take-nothing judgment against the Fulghams.
On original submission to this Court, the Fulghams claimed that the trial court erred (1) in failing to consider spoliation of evidence, (2) in holding that there was no evidence of the standard of care or breach of the standard of care, (3) in holding that there was no evidence to invoke product liability law, and (4) in excluding part of their expert's testimony. We concluded that there was some evidence to establish negligence without the expert testimony, which was not necessary in this case, and held that the trial court had erred in granting directed verdict on the negligence claim. We also held that the trial court erred in granting directed verdict on the product liability claim. Without reaching the issues of spoliation and exclusion of expert testimony, we reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. Larry Fulgham and Debra Fulgham v. FFE Transportation Services, Inc. , 152 S.W.2d 140 (Tex. App.-Dallas, 2002).
The Supreme Court of Texas reversed our holding and remanded this case for our consideration of the remaining two issues. The Court concluded:
1. The trial court correctly dismissed the strict products liability claim;
2. On appeal, the trial court's determination of whether expert testimony is necessary to establish negligence should be reviewed de novo;
3. The trial court did not err in finding that the standard of care for the proper inspection and maintenance of a refrigerated trailer is beyond the experience of a layman and must therefore by established by expert testimony; and
4. No probative expert testimony regarding the relevant standard of care was admitted.
Page 1 2 3 4 Texas Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|