PHMY News 2006

Union Pacific Settles Railroad Death Case For $9 Million

Estate of Roger Bruenig, et. al. v. Union Pacific Railroad, et. al. (Bexar County District Court), July 2006

PHMY attorneys Kevin M. Young and Grant T. McFarland recently settled a single-fatality lawsuit against the Union Pacific Railroad for $9 Million.  The lawsuit arose from the death of a 38-year-old San Antonio man, Roger Bruenig, killed by the negligent derail of a U.P. train.  PHMY represented the deceased's minor daughter and acted as lead counsel for the Estate.  Other attorneys represented the parents of the deceased and judgment was entered on July 19, 2006.

The aggressive strategy of the PHMY attorneys enabled them to build a solid case for punitive damages by obtaining numerous documents not previously produced by U.P., securing damaging testimony from U.P. officials, and locking in a date for the deposition of U.P. president, Jim Young.  The case was settled before Mr. Young testified under oath.  Additionally, PHMY enlisted industry experts Charles L. Culver, Mike Deatherage and George A. Gavalla as consultants in the prosecution of this case. The net recovery to the client was approximately $5,558,000.

Federal Judge Throws Out Window Glazing Claim As
Pre-empted
O'Hara v. General Motors Corporation (N.D. Texas), April 25, 2006

Chief Judge A. Joe Fish of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas ruled on August 25, 2006 that the plaintiffs in O'Hara v. General Motors Corporation could not go forward against GM with their claim that their 2004 Chevy Tahoe was defective for using tempered glass instead of laminated glass in the side windows. In a 20-page opinion, Judge Fish granted GM summary judgment, holding that any claim challenging GM's decision to use tempered glass would frustrate the safety policy of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), and was therefore impliedly federally pre-empted. The judge determined that NHTSA's decision to preserve the specific option for tempered glass in side windows was part of a regulatory strategy to protect public safety that would be undermined if claims like that brought against GM by the O'Hara's were to go forward.

The case arose of a partial ejection of the O'Hara's daughter, Holly O'Hara, a nine year old riding in the front passenger seat. Her mother, Michelle O'Hara, lost control of the vehicle and rolled it on to its side on an access road near Round Rock, Texas. The O'Haras were represented by Leon Russell of Dallas and Pat Ardis from the Memphis firm Wolff Ardis. GM was represented by Brendan McBride, David Prichard, Karl Rivas, Tony Avey and Daniela Gonzales-Aldape with the San Antonio office of Prichard, Hawkins, McFarland & Young.

The Texas Supreme Court issued its opinion affirming a defense verdict for Hyundai Motor Company in a hotly contested appeal concerning the discretion of Texas trial judges to control questioning during the jury selection process. The appeal in Hyundai Motor Co. v. Vasquez arose out of a June 2001 verdict for Hyundai in a San Antonio court brought on behalf of the Vasquez family by Houston lawyer Mike Caddell. The Vasquez's four-year old daughter Amber was unbelted and seated in the front seat of a 1997 Hyundai Accent when her aunt, Valerie Suarez, struck another vehicle driven by Dianna Navarro in October 1997. The collision caused the Hyundai's airbags to deploy, tragically killing the unrestrained Amber. A Bexar county jury found that Amber's death was not caused by any defect in the Hyundai airbag, and apportioned fault for the death between the two drivers, Suarez and Navarro. Hyundai was represented at the trial by David Prichard and Kevin Young of the San Antonio firm of Prichard, Hawkins, McFarland & Young.

The Vasquez family appealed, claiming that they were unfairly prohibited from asking prospective jurors whether they would give decisive weight to the fact that Amber was unbelted and seated in the front seat at the time of the accident. A panel of the San Antonio Court of Appeals initially affirmed the verdict in an opinion written by Justice Paul Green. A year later, the court of appeals reconsidered the appeal en banc, and reversed itself and the trial court in another opinion written by Justice Green. The court of appeals determined that the Vasquez family was not given a fair opportunity to question jurors about potential bias during jury selection.

The Texas Supreme Court disagreed. Justice Jane Bland, sitting on the case by special appointment by Governor Perry, wrote the opinion of the court. The supreme court held that the questions sought to be asked by the plaintiffs' attorney were properly refused by the trial court as commitment questions, and that the plaintiffs failed to ask other questions about possible bias that might have been proper. Since the trial court did not abuse her discretion in restricting the commitment questions, and the plaintiffs had waived any further complaint by not proposing any proper bias questions, the defense verdict was affirmed. Hyundai was represented in the appeal by David Kelter of Fort Worth, and Brendan McBride of Prichard, Hawkins, McFarland & Young.

PHMY attorneys, working with Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe of Los Angeles, successfully defended a complex commercial liability case on behalf of DHL Worldwide Express, Inc. and Airborne Express, Inc., after an almost three-month long trial in San Antonio.  The suit was brought by courier companies in Texas and Mexico that previously worked with Airborne Express, which was acquired by DHL in 2003.

The plaintiffs asserted multiple claims, including breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, tortious interference with business relations, fraud and negligent misrepresentation, concerning freight and express shipments to and from Mexico.  At trial, the plaintiffs asked the jury to award up to $60 million in actual and punitive damages.  The jury rejected most of the plaintiffs claims and awarded only about $650,000 in damages.

At trial, Airborne Express and DHL were represented by PHMY attorneys Jeff Hawkins and David Montpas and by Bill Oxley, Ed Woodsome, Chris Ruhland and Chris McDavid of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe.

Jury Finds for Land Rover In Product Liability Trial
Page v. Land Rover (Wood County, Texas), January, 2006

A Wood County jury found no stability defect in a 2000 Land Rover Discovery II trial on January 25, 2006. Sandra L. Page sustained serious personal injuries when her Discovery II rolled over on smooth, dry pavement. Ford Motor Co., the current owner of Land Rover, made substantial pretrial settlement offers. These offers were refused by the plaintiff and the jury returned a complete take-nothing verdict in less than forty-five minutes. David Prichard co-tried the case with Lee Mickus of Snell & Wilmers Denver office.

Results obtained depend on the particular facts of each case.