The Opening Statement

A recent $1.4 million dram shop settlement in Texas obtained by our firm, Clark, von Plonski, Anderson (CVPA), highlights a critical legal principle: bars can be held accountable when they continue to serve an obviously intoxicated person who later causes a serious crash.

CvPA’s recent $2.3 million jury verdict in Texas is a powerful reminder that hospital negligence and unsafe practices can lead to devastating, lifelong consequences. The case was tried by lead counsel, Jacob von Plonski, alongside Linda Jones and Connor Barbe, who presented the evidence demonstrating how preventable safety failures led to life-altering injuries.

Serious oilfield accidents often raise a critical legal question: who is responsible when a dangerous process causes an explosion? In Texas, the answer frequently extends beyond the injured worker or operator and reaches the companies that design, market, and carry out hazardous procedures.

A recent Texas case highlights an issue that comes up far too often in personal injury litigation: what happens when multiple establishments serve alcohol to a visibly intoxicated person, and that person later causes a serious crash. Despite recent defense arguments claiming otherwise, Texas Dram Shop liability is alive and well. The law still provides a path for a Texas dram shop lawyer to hold alcohol providers accountable when their conduct contributes to preventable tragedies caused by overserving alcohol.

A recent workplace injury case involving a piece of motorized-powered machinery resulted in a $3.5 million settlement, underscoring the severe consequences of unsafe working conditions and lack of employee training. This settlement reflects the serious liability companies face when safety is compromised. Workplace injuries involving heavy machinery are often preventable—and when negligence is involved, injured workers have the right to pursue compensation.

With the enactment of Chapter 72 of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code, defense counsel in commercial vehicle collision cases increasingly move to bifurcate trial proceedings under the statute. But not all such motions are properly grounded in fact or law. In many cases, particularly those not involving commercial motor vehicles (CMVs), such motions may be improper or strategically vague. This article outlines practical objections and legal arguments plaintiff’s counsel can raise to combat these motions effectively.