 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Doctor v. Pardue9/15/2005
ight of the state policies underlying the particular substantive issue. Id.
The facts controlling the choice of law analysis here are largely undisputed. Lad's injury occurred in Wisconsin, as did the conduct causing the injury. See Experimental Aircraft Ass'n, Inc. v. Doctor, 76 S.W.3d 496, 504--05 (Tex. App.---Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, no pet.) (agreeing with EAA's contention that there was no evidence to support finding of specific jurisdiction in this case). At the time of the collision, although the Doctors and Pardue were Texas residents, EAA was incorporated in Wisconsin and maintained its principal place of business in Wisconsin.
In regard to the relevant policies of the forum, we note that Texas has abolished the common-law doctrine of charitable immunity. Howle v. Camp Amon Carter, 470 S.W.2d 629, 630 (Tex. 1971); Sprague v. Mem'l Baptist Hosp. Sys., 580 S.W.2d 1, 2 (Tex. Civ. App.---Houston [1st Dist.] 1979, writ ref'd n.r.e.). However, in 1987, the Texas Legislature enacted the Texas Charitable Immunity and Liability Act, limiting the liability of charitable organizations and immunizing volunteers who meet certain conditions. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. §§ 84.001--.008 (Vernon Supp. 2004-2005). Specifically, in any civil action brought against a nonhospital charitable organization for damages based on an act or omission by the organization or its employees or volunteers, the liability of the organization is limited to a maximum of $500,000 for each person and $1,000,000 for each single occurrence of bodily injury or death. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 84.006. The Legislature passed the Act with the following findings and purposes:
(1) robust, active, bona fide, and well-supported charitable organizations are needed within Texas to perform essential and needed services;
(2) the willingness of volunteers to offer their services to these organizations is deterred by the perception of personal liability arising out of the services rendered to these organizations;
(3) because of these concerns over personal liability, volunteers are withdrawing from services in all capacities;
(4) these same organizations have a further problem in obtaining and affording liability insurance for the organization and its employees and volunteers;
(5) these problems combine to diminish the services being provided to Texas and local communities because of higher costs and fewer programs;
(6) the citizens of this state have an overriding interest in the continued and increased delivery of these services that must be balanced with other policy considerations; and
(7) because of the above conditions and policy considerations, it is the purpose of this Act to reduce the liability exposure and insurance costs of these organizations and their employees and volunteers in order to encourage volunteer services and maximize the resources devoted to delivering these services.
Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 84.002 (Vernon Supp. 2004-2005) (emphasis added).
Like Texas, Wisconsin has also essentially eliminated common-law charitable immunity. See Lewis v. Physicians Insur. Co. of Wisconsin, 627 N.W.2d 484, 492 (Wis. 2001) (noting that charitable immunity doctrine in Wisconsin is largely defunct); Szarzynski v. YMCA, 517 N.W.2d 135, 141 (Wis. 1994) (citing Widell v. Holy Trinity Catholic Church, 121 N.W.2d 249, 251 (Wis. 1963) (stating that immunity for charitable and religious organizations has been eliminated by courts)). Wisconsin eliminated common-law charitable immunity on public policy grounds. In Widell, the Wisconsin Supreme Court stated:
When an
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Texas Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|