Keith Mack
A cause of action (CoA) is a commonly used acronym and the crux of a lawsuit. It refers to the plaintiff's primary right to relief and the defendant's act or omission that violates that right. In Texas, common law causes of action may arise in personal injury, commercial litigation, and privacy tort cases. For example, Texas courts have recognized negligence-based causes of action, allowing individuals harmed by a company's failure to properly vet an employee hired for a dangerous job to sue the company. Texas courts have also adopted a cause of action for invasion of privacy, as seen in the case of Billings v. Atkinson, where the plaintiff was awarded damages for unlawful phone tapping. Understanding the specific elements of a cause of action is crucial for determining relevant evidence, defence strategies, and potential insurance involvement.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Definition | A cause of action is what a plaintiff pleads in a lawsuit, governing what evidence is relevant and what questions are submitted to the jury. |
| Plaintiff's role | A plaintiff must establish all essential facts to demonstrate their legal right to relief. |
| Defendant's role | The defendant's act or omission that violates the plaintiff's right. |
| Types | Negligence, negligence per se, gross negligence, bystander claims, negligent entrustment, unjust enrichment, invasion of privacy, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and more. |
| Determining factors | Whether the defendant had a duty to act, whether the defendant volunteered to protect the plaintiff from harm, and whether the defendant knew their conduct would harm the plaintiff. |
| Statute of limitations | Texas courts apply a two-year statute of limitations to privacy torts. |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
Negligence
To prove negligence, the injured party must show that the other party had a responsibility to act with care, failed to uphold that responsibility, caused the injury, and resulted in damages. These elements—duty of care, breach of duty, causation, and damages—are the foundation of any negligence case.
The plaintiff must prove that they suffered actual harm or losses as a result of the defendant's actions. This can include physical injuries, medical expenses, lost wages, or emotional distress.
Texas is one of the states that follows a modified comparative negligence rule. This means that if a claimant is found to be partly responsible for their injuries, their compensation will be reduced according to their share of the fault. For example, if a claimant is found to be 30% at fault, their compensation will be reduced by 30%. This rule encourages accountability and discourages frivolous lawsuits.
There are several types of negligence claims that can be made in Texas:
- Negligence: Claims require the plaintiff to show that the defendant failed to live up to a reasonable standard of care. The plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant was careless in their actions and that this carelessness caused their injuries.
- Negligence per se: This is based on a perpetrator's failure to follow a written law or regulation.
- Gross negligence: This occurs when people willfully disregard the well-being and safety of others.
- Bystander claims: These are claims made by those who witness a close family member get injured or killed, causing mental anguish.
- Negligent entrustment: This involves individuals allowing their possessions (such as vehicles) to be used by patently dangerous persons.
How Laws Can Change Without Congress
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Invasion of privacy
In Texas, the Invasion of Privacy tort encompasses three distinct violations of one's privacy:
- Misappropriation: The right to be free from the unwarranted appropriation or exploitation of one's personality. This protects the value associated with one's name, not the name per se. For instance, in Matthews v. Wozencraft, it was established that an invasion of privacy has not occurred where one's name or likeness has been appropriated for some non-commercial reason or for a reason unrelated to the name's commercial value.
- Unlawful publicity: Publicizing one's private affairs that are not of legitimate public concern.
- Intrusion on seclusion: Wrongful intrusion into one's private activities that would cause mental suffering, shame, or humiliation to a person of ordinary sensibilities.
Texas courts apply a two-year statute of limitations to privacy torts. For example, in Billings v. Atkinson, a cause of action for invasion of privacy was adopted, and the plaintiff was awarded $25,000 in damages against the defendant for unlawfully tapping the plaintiff's phone.
Texas has expressly refused to adopt a claim for false light invasion of privacy, as it duplicates other rights of recovery, particularly defamation, and lacks the procedural limitations that accompany defamation claims, thus increasing the tension between free speech guarantees and tort law.
In the context of divorce, spouses may have access to each other's private concerns and affairs, but this does not grant them immunity from invasion of privacy claims. A common violation occurs when one partner secretly records the other. For example, in Clayton v. Richards, a wife collaborated with a private investigator to set up a video recording system in the bedroom she shared with her husband, suspecting he was having an affair. The court held that this could form the basis of an invasion of privacy suit against the wife and the investigator.
Additionally, victims of the nonconsensual online publication of intimate photographs or videos may attempt to sue under a common law tort claim, although Texas courts do not recognize prima facie tort claims. Instead, plaintiffs should proceed with an IIED (Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress) claim, as the Texas Supreme Court has rejected NIED (Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress).
Common-Law Unions: Declaration and Legal Recognition
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Negligent infliction of emotional distress
In Texas, a plaintiff can only seek financial compensation for the infliction of emotional distress if a defendant’s actions were intentional and not negligent or unintentional. This is known as intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED). IIED requires proof that the defendant acted intentionally or recklessly, that their conduct was extreme and outrageous, and that the plaintiff suffered severe emotional distress as a result.
Texas recognizes some exceptions to the general rule. For example, bystanders can recover compensation for mental anguish caused by witnessing a traumatic event, such as a violent dog attack, provided the victim suffered severe injury or death and the plaintiff is closely related to them. Another exception is for "special relationships," where a contract creates a special relationship between two parties, imposing a duty of good faith and fair dealing.
In a personal injury case, emotional distress is considered a type of non-economic damage, which does not have a specific dollar value. It includes pain and suffering or emotional distress. Accident victims in Texas may seek compensation for emotional distress caused by a personal injury, but they must be able to prove physical injury alongside the emotional distress.
The Thin Blue Line: When Protecting Becomes Oppressing
You may want to see also
Explore related products
$46.99 $46.99
Unjust enrichment
The key elements of unjust enrichment in Texas are the absence of a contract and the receipt of a benefit by one party without providing proper restitution to the other. This often arises when one party fulfils their obligations under a contract, but the other party does not. In such cases, the aggrieved party can seek restitution or compensation from the enriched party.
For example, consider a situation where Person A builds and delivers a bicycle to the home of Person B, but it is mistakenly delivered to Person C, who accepts and uses the bicycle without paying for it. In this case, Person A has a claim against Person C for unjust enrichment because there is no contract between them, and Person C has received a benefit (the bicycle) without providing compensation.
In summary, unjust enrichment in Texas law serves to promote fairness and equity in transactions by ensuring that no party unjustly benefits at the expense of another. It provides a remedy to restore balance and protect the financial and personal interests of all involved parties.
Kelvin: The Gas Laws' Constant Companion
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Negligent hiring
The basis of responsibility under the doctrine of negligent hiring is the employer's negligence in hiring or retaining an incompetent or unfit employee, whom the employer knew, or through the exercise of reasonable care, should have known was incompetent or unfit. This is a duty owed by the employer not only to other employees but also to the public. Thus, the tort of negligent hiring is an exception to the general rule that a person does not have a duty to protect another person from the conduct of a third person.
For example, an employer may fail to conduct a background check and hire an employee who then uses their paycheck to buy credit card numbers from another criminal and sells those numbers to a third criminal who makes fraudulent purchases. Here, the employer is part of the chain of causation because without the paycheck, the employee could not have bought the credit card numbers. However, the employer's involvement in causing the harm may be considered remote, and they may not be held liable.
To impose liability for negligent hiring in Texas, there must be evidence that the plaintiff's injuries were brought about by the employment of the incompetent servant. This means that the employer's failure to investigate, screen, or supervise its employees must be shown to have proximately caused the alleged injuries.
In Texas, the statute of limitations for a negligent hiring claim is two years. Additionally, a new Texas law limits liability for negligent hiring and supervision of employees with criminal convictions. This law insulates employers from such claims unless the employer knew or should have known that an employee had been convicted of a crime while performing substantially similar duties or had been convicted of specific crimes enumerated in the statute.
Legislative Power: Who Makes the Laws?
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
A cause of action (CoA) is a commonly used acronym and the epicenter of a lawsuit. It includes all essential facts that the plaintiff must establish to demonstrate their legal right to relief.
Some examples of common law causes of action in Texas include:
- Negligence: Claims that a person failed to live up to a reasonable standard of care, and that carelessness caused the plaintiff's injuries.
- Negligence per se: When the defendant fails to follow a written law or regulation.
- Gross negligence: When people willfully disregard the well-being and safety of others.
- Invasion of privacy: Texas courts apply a two-year statute of limitations to privacy torts.
A precedent cause of action refers to the common law system where courts rely on previously decided cases to determine outcomes in current cases with similar facts or legal issues. A discovery cause of action refers to when the plaintiff is unaware of the act done by the defendant that caused harm, and only triggers the accrual of the cause of action when the harm is discovered.
