A lot has been in the news about the recent verdict in the Alex Jones/Sandy Hook trial. Much of the reporting discusses whether Jones will have to pay the full amount awarded by the jury, or whether Texas’ cap on punitive damages will limit the plaintiffs’ recovery. While the judge in this case hasn’t issued a final judgment, let’s get a refresher on punitive damages in Texas law. First, there is a difference between compensatory damages—which cover both economic (loss of a job or income) and non-economic damages (impact on a plaintiff’s health or reputation, for example)—and punitive damages. Compensatory damages are meant to make a plaintiff whole. Punitive damages, on the other hand, are meant to punish the defendant or act as a deterrent for future behavior. These are the damages at issue in this case. Texas capped punitive damages in 1987. The cap was set at “four times the amount of actual damages or $200,000, whichever is greater.” “Actual damages” was not defined in the statutes, creating ambiguity.  The Texas Legislature revisited the punitive damages cap in 1995, making a number of changes, including resetting the cap to: “an amount equal to the greater of:  (1)(A) two times

Last week, the Port of Houston began a long-awaited project that will expand the Houston Ship Channel to accommodate more and larger cargo ships. This much-needed expansion supports Texas’ booming population and economic growth, enabling more imports and exports into and from the Lone Star State. But without tort reform, this project wouldn’t be possible. That’s because back in 2003, a lawsuit abuse scheme against dredging companies in Texas threatened to shut our ports down. You see, while Texas has 11 deep-draft ports, we don’t have any natural deep-water ports, which means our waterways have to be dredged constantly to keep ship channels open for business. So, whether it’s a new port project, expansion of an existing port or regular maintenance and upkeep, dredging is critical to the ongoing functioning of Texas ports up and down the Gulf. But back in the early 2000s, a loophole in Texas law had allowed an explosion of personal injury lawsuits under the federal Jones Act, which allows workers to pursue lawsuits against dredgers for injuries occurring at sea. The Texas law allowed these lawsuits to be pursued in the county in which the plaintiff resided, rather than the county where the alleged injury

Much has been written about Elon Musk—eccentric billionaire, CEO of some of the most innovative companies in the world and… future owner of Twitter? While the nuances of this deal are daily fodder for folks on social media, in reality, there is a specialized court where legal issues and challenges related to Musk’s acquisition of the social media giant will be hashed out: the Delaware Court of Chancery. But first, some background. Delaware’s Chancery Court has existed since 1792, although the principles and concepts upon which the court is based date back to 16th century England. By its own description, the court is “widely recognized as the nation’s preeminent forum for the determination of disputes involving the internal affairs of the thousands upon thousands of Delaware corporations and other business entities through which a vast amount of the world’s commercial affairs is conducted. Its unique competence in and exposure to issues of business law are unmatched.” If you’ve ever wondered why so many companies are incorporated in Delaware, there’s a good chance it has to do with the Chancery Court. The state has developed an international reputation for the quality of its corporate governance laws and business dispute resolution system.

Ah, the murky, wild world of attorney advertising, where it pays to be the loudest, the most outrageous and the least transparent. Watch any amount of daytime television and you’ll get the picture. Attorney advertising was prohibited for many years, viewed as in indirect form of barratry (“ambulance chasing”), until a U.S. Supreme Court decision deemed it acceptable speech under the First Amendment. Since then, attorney advertising has largely been regulated by the State Bar of Texas, which implements rules enacted by the Texas Supreme Court. These rules govern the content of advertising and are meant to protect the public by ensuring attorney ads are not deceptive. They also require that the State Bar of Texas pre-approve attorney ads. That’s why we were interested to see a recent direct mail ad from a prolific storm-chasing lawyer out of Houston. This attorney has built a cottage industry around weather-related litigation. His most recent target is property owners impacted by Texas’ historic winter storm in 2021.  Much of the language in the ad is problematic. The ad includes a bolded and underlined statement near the top that the attorney’s fee will be 33.3 percent… until you read the fine print. The fee

The concept of a public nuisance goes back to old English criminal laws making it, for example, a crime to obstruct the king’s highway. In its most traditional sense, public nuisance is a “condition, activity, or situation (such as a loud noise or foul odor) that either injures the physical condition of adjacent land or interferes with its use or with the enjoyment of easements on the land or of public highways.” Liability might or might not arise from the situation, and the appropriate remedy is most often to abate the cause of the nuisance.  While each state defines public nuisance differently, an essential component is that it is an action carried out by one entity that affects the public at large, rather than an individual or small group of people, and limits their ability to use a public resource. But in recent years, the plaintiff’s bar and activist attorneys general, city attorneys and district attorneys have discovered a new use for public nuisance—implementing public policy changes by circumventing the legislative process. They claim that legal activities and products—such as oil and gas, firearms and pharmaceuticals—have harmed society and thus become a public nuisance. In one mind-boggling instance, the city

Texas’ road from Spindletop to Tesla seems unlikely, but in reality, it was inevitable. Innovation has long been in the fabric of our state. The world has Texas to thank for everything from the frozen margarita to ATMs to the first handheld calculator. And now, we can add low-cost COVID-19 vaccine to that list. Researchers at the Baylor College of Medicine and the Texas Children’s Center for Vaccine Development in Houston have developed a game-changing vaccine that will help low- and mid-income countries protect their populations from COVID-19. Much of the funding for development of the new vaccine came from Texans. The vaccine uses older, proven technologies that can be manufactured more easily and at a fraction of the price it takes to manufacture the vaccines in use in the U.S. The intellectual property to develop the vaccine has been made publicly available in order to expand access, and it has already received emergency authorization for production in India. So what’s the secret sauce that continues to attract big thinkers to the Lone Star State? A strong economy that encourages investment and research, supported by a fair legal system that shuts down innovation-killing lawsuits. Particularly in the world of vaccine

A report in the San Antonio Express-News last week about a civil lawsuit caught our attention.  The 2018 lawsuit centered around the sexual assault of a minor and was only recently publicized in a string of billboards up and down the IH-35 corridor.  What makes this story unusual is not the unexplained delay in publication of the judgment, but the judgment itself—an unprecedented $1.25 billion, none of which has been (or ever will be) collected by the plaintiff. It will never be collected, not only because the defendant cannot pay it, but because the law firm handling the case apparently never sought to collect a dime of the damages. In fact, according to the Express-News, the client was told the firm was “closing the case” after the client declined to participate in advertisements promoting the firm. So, what leads a law firm to pursue a lawsuit if it doesn’t plan to enforce the judgment?  Optics. As we’ve discussed previously, many advertising personal injury trial lawyers exploit “social inflation”—or society’s collective devaluation of a dollar—in the promotion of their services. As the general public gets accustomed to seeing larger and larger verdicts (and eye-popping salaries for athletes, entertainers and others), their

As we roll into the holiday season, America has one thing on its mind: logistics. Well, more specifically, turkeys and pumpkin pies and Christmas presents… or the lack thereof on store shelves. The Great Toilet Paper Shortage of 2020 may seem like a distant memory today, but nearly two years later, the pandemic-triggered disruptions to our supply chain linger on. Families are having trouble getting everything from food and clothing to electronics and vehicles, with prices increasing on the goods that are available. The culprit? California ports, which cut back on staffing during the pandemic and have been overwhelmed by swelling growth in demand for consumer goods, leaving cargo ships stuck off the coast of Long Beach. Ongoing truck driver shortages have further complicated the process, as there aren’t enough drivers to pick up and distribute the goods once they’re off the ships. While these challenges have been felt at ports nationwide, some are pointing to Texas as the solution. According to the Texas Ports Association, the Lone Star State ranks second in nation for waterborne commerce, with 616 million tons of foreign and domestic cargo, generating $450 billion in total economic value for Texas. That represents 25 percent of

During the 87th Session, the Legislature passed a number of measures that require approval by Texas voters before going into effect. Two of these measures deal with issues TLR has long advocated for—improving the experience, competence and quality of Texas’ judiciary.  Having qualified judicial candidates running for office is critical to ensuring every Texan has access to a fair and efficient legal system, and to strengthening our economic foundation. While TLR continues to advocate for moving away from a partisan election system of electing judges, we believe these measures are important to ensuring the judges we elect are qualified to hold their important positions.  Proposition 4: Changes to Eligibility for Certain Judicial Offices A vote YES supports making the following changes to eligibility for judges on the Texas Supreme Court and Court of Criminal appeals, intermediate appellate courts and district courts: Requires candidates to be residents of Texas as well as U.S. citizens; Requires 10 years of experience in Texas as a practicing lawyer or judge of a state or county court for candidates of the Supreme Court, Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, or a court of appeals; Requires eight years of experience in Texas as a practicing lawyer or

In October 2020, seven top officials at the Texas Attorney General’s Office (OAG) reported potential criminal conduct by Attorney General Ken Paxton to the FBI and Travis County District Attorney’s Office. They were: the First Assistant Attorney General, Deputy First Assistant Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General for Policy & Strategy Initiatives, Deputy Attorney General for Civil Litigation, Deputy Attorney General for Legal Counsel, Deputy Attorney General for Administration and Deputy Attorney General for Criminal Justice. First Assistant Attorney General Jeffrey Mateer resigned upon reporting Mr. Paxton’s alleged misconduct. Others were fired, or resigned in the face of alleged harassment conducted by OAG personnel at Paxton’s request. Four of the former officials filed a whistleblower lawsuit against the OAG, which it moved to dismiss, arguing it was immune because Ken Paxton was not “a public employee” as required by the whistleblower statute. The OAG further asserted the whistleblowers had failed to make a good-faith report of illegal conduct. A Travis County trial court refused to dismiss the whistleblowers’ action but allowed an immediate appeal of that decision pursuant to a statutory change advocated by TLR allowing an immediate appeal of a controlling question of law. On Oct. 21, 2021, Texas’ Third