Kelsi Piatkowski (Partner-Houston, TX) and Servando Rivas (Associate-Houston, TX) prevailed on behalf of a Fortune 500 company that is among the nation’s largest hardware retailers. After previously obtaining a summary judgment and dismissal in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, the plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

The case arose from an allegation that a cart failed, causing injury to one of the plaintiffs. On appeal, plaintiffs argued they had raised a genuine issue of material fact regarding the client's constructive knowledge of the allegedly defective cart. In a per curiam opinion, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s order on summary judgment, agreeing that the plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient temporal evidence under Texas's “time-notice rule.”

Kelsi Piatkowski (Partner-Houston, TX) and Angela Morales (Associate-Houston, TX) successfully defended their client in a suit arising from a motor vehicle accident, where multiple theories were alleged, including vicarious liability. The plaintiff advanced an increasingly utilized – but legally unrecognized – theory that cellphone application notifications sent to an independent contractor delivery driver transformed the relationship into one of employment. They also contended that the client owed a duty to prevent independent drivers from engaging in distracted driving. After extensive briefing and oral argument, including an argument that Texas law does not recognize a cause of action imposing tort liability on technology platforms for an independent driver’s decision to interact with a mobile device while driving, the Court granted our client’s motion for summary judgment. Indeed, the Court ordered all claims dismissed with prejudice.

Katherine Beres (Of Counsel-Detroit, MI) and Garett Willig (Partner-Houston, TX) succeeded on a motion for summary disposition in the St. Clair County Circuit Court, St. Clair, Michigan, in a premises liability case against Wilson Elser’s restaurant client. The plaintiff allegedly tripped and fell on a crack in the exterior yellow curb near the restaurant entrance, claiming the restaurant failed to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition. However, Katherine and Garett's explanation in support of their motion for summary disposition demonstrated that the crack in the yellow-painted curb was not a dangerous condition and did not pose an unreasonable risk of harm to the plaintiff or anyone else. The court concurred, granting Wilson Elser’s motion and dismissing the case.

Michael Marconi (Of Counsel-Dallas, TX) and Garett Willig (Partner-Houston, TX) secured a unanimous defense verdict on behalf of Wilson Elser’s client, an international hospitality group encompassing restaurants, hotels and gaming, in a premises liability/wrongful death case tried in the 68th Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas. The plaintiffs claimed the decedent tripped over an allegedly defective concrete wheel stop in our client’s parking lot, suffered a massive head injury from the fall, and died days later after he was transferred to hospice care. Less than a week before trial, the parties went to mediation and the plaintiffs never came off their demand for $15 million to settle the case. At trial, the plaintiffs presented expert testimony that wheel stops pose an unreasonably dangerous trip hazard; that safer alternatives exist; that the wheel stop in question was particularly dangerous because a piece of rebar was exposed and because it was not painted to contrast with the parking lot floor. Michael, as lead counsel, presented expert testimony that wheel stops are very common and not unreasonably dangerous; that the restaurant group’s parking lot complied with all the applicable ADA and municipal code requirements; and that the exposed rebar was insignificant. Our client’s corporate representative testified that there was no history of wheel stop accidents at the restaurant group’s parking lots prior to the accident at issue. The jury returned a 12-0 defense verdict less than two hours after commencing deliberations.

Kelsi Piatkowski (Of Counsel-Houston, TX) and Servando Rivas (Associate-Houston, TX) scored a huge win on behalf of one of the nation’s largest hardware stores and Fortune 500 company. The plaintiffs brought claims against the client arising out of an alleged failure of a garden shopping cart that struck the foot of one of the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs alleged the incident caused plantar fasciitis for which the plaintiff underwent a surgical procedure and sought $4.3 million in damages. Kelsi and Servando moved for summary judgment on all claims, arguing that the client had no notice of the purported defects and therefore could not be held liable under Texas law. After a month of extensive briefing, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas agreed with the client’s arguments and dismissed the entire case with prejudice.

John Domaszek (Of Counsel-Houston, TX) and Servando Rivas (Associate-Houston, TX) prevailed on a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Tex. Civ. P. 91a that tossed a plaintiff’s claims against one of the firm’s major global technology clients. The plaintiff asserted negligence claims against the client and contended that the client implemented a business operation that systematically creates distractions entitling the plaintiff to more than $1 million in damages for significant injuries arising from an incident. On behalf of the global technology client, we argued that such a claim is not recognized under Texas law, thus the plaintiff was not entitled to relief and the claim must be dismissed. The Travis County District Court agreed and dismissed the plaintiff’s claims in their entirety, and ordered that the plaintiff take nothing from our client.

Kelsi Wade Piatkowski (Of Counsel-Houston, TX) and Servando Rivas (Associate-Houston, TX) prevailed on a motion for summary judgment that tossed the plaintiff’s claims against our commercial property landlord client. The plaintiff asserted negligence and premises liability claims and contended that the client’s failure to correct a defect on the property entitled him to more than $1 million in damages for significant injuries arising from an incident on the premises. On behalf of the client, Kelsi and Servando argued that it had no control over the subject property pursuant to several provisions contained in a commercial lease agreement with a tenant. The Brazoria County District Court agreed and granted the motion for summary judgment in its entirety, dismissing the plaintiff’s claims and ordering that he take nothing from our client.

Kelsi Wade Piatkowski (Of Counsel-Houston, TX), assisted by John Domaszek (Of Counsel-Houston, TX) and Servando Rivas (Associate-Houston, TX), secured summary judgment for one of the firm’s major global technology clients in a case in which the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit following an automobile accident alleging various claims, including vicarious liability and gross negligence, against our client. The plaintiffs further alleged that the incident resulted in a death of the decedent. The plaintiffs demanded $1 million to resolve the claims. However, after extensive briefing by both sides and oral arguments, the 127th District Court in Harris County, Texas granted Kelsi’s traditional and no-evidence motion for summary judgment, ordering all claims to be dismissed with prejudice and ordering that the plaintiffs take nothing of, from, or against our client.

Christina Huston (Of Counsel-Houston, TX) and John Shepperd (Partner-Houston, TX) obtained a defense verdict after five days of trial. The plaintiff alleged her client spine surgeon performed an unnecessary 360° spinal fusion surgery when the patient presented with hip pain that was secondary to a trochanter bursitis rather than a herniated disc. The plaintiff subsequently suffered a failed fusion. The plaintiff relied on the testimony of a hip surgeon as well as an investigation by her health insurance carrier that concluded this was an unnecessary surgery. The plaintiff also claimed that our client made his decision to operate solely on provoked discography, which the plaintiff described as an antiquated “Voodoo” technology. The client countered by testifying that the insurance claim was denied because it was mistakenly characterized as a two-level fusion for herniated discs. Christina and John agreed that a two-level fusion for herniated discs is inappropriate, but that was not the patient’s diagnosis. The patient actually had internal disc disruption at two levels. The disc disruption was demonstrated on a post-discography CT scan that showed extravasation of injected dye outside the disc space. The jury returned an 11-1 verdict for the surgeon in less than an hour.