The Trial Process In Texas Personal Injury Lawsuits
Trial is the civil process where the facts of a case are presented to a judge or jury, and a verdict is reached which determines the defendant's degree of liability for the damages asserted by the plaintiff. During personal injury trials here in Texas, the attorneys representing both parties use witnesses and evidence to prove the elements of their claim or legal defense to the causes of action asserted in the Petition or Answer. In most cases, the party that filed the original petition must prove the defendant is liable for acts of negligence, gross negligence, intentional conduct, or through the theory of strict liability At trial, the judge generally determines what evidence can be shown to the jury. The jury will then take the evidence and weigh the facts presented throughout the trial before returning their verdict.
What Are The Stages of Trial Here in Texas?
The major stages of trial here in Texas include jury selection, voir dire, opening statements, the presentation of evidence, cross-examination, closing arguments, jury deliberation, and announcement of the verdict.
Jury selection
A civil trial begins with a randomized selection of U.S. citizens who reside in the same district as the court. This selection process is also known as venire. The background of these citizens are inspected to ensure they are 18 years of age or older, have no criminal charges, and have no impairments that could affect their vote.
Voir Dire
The potential jurors are then questioned by both parties in a legal process known as vior dire, which assesses their ability to make unbiased and morally sound decisions. The attorneys begins the voir dire process by asking carefully crafted questions that relate to the case to filter out the jurors who would not be acceptable decision-makers. These questions are often centered around the personal and emotional aspects of the jurors.
The lawyers are then able to strike a limited number of potential jurors without providing reason, which is also known as a peremptory strike. Additional, and unlimited strikes can then be made through for cause challenges, during which the moving attorney must provide the judge a sufficient argument as to why that particular potential juror is unfit to serve on the jury based on their bias, interest, or medical impairment. The judge then make a determination, and if he or she agrees, the juror is excused.
Opening statements
Opening statements are vital in a civil trial because they introduce the central arguments of each party’s case and set the tone for the rest of the trial. Each party is allowed to explain their motives, establish how the case directly affects their lives, highlight evidence, foster credibility, and deliver a narrative that resonates with the jury emotionally and factually.
The attorney will also preview which expert witnesses their side will present for the jury. This often includes medical professionals, accident reconstructionists, marine biologists, economics, safety engineers, and others who could be relevant to a specific situation. Effective emotional engagement during opening statements is also important and can greatly influence a juror’s empathy and level of compassion toward the plaintiff's experience. Experienced attorneys study the art of storytelling to create vivid and impactful pictures of the victims' suffering and resilience.
Presentation of evidence
This stage refers to the process of introducing key information, such as any witness testimony, physical or electronic documents, physical objects, or demonstrative evidence, such as a chart, diagram, or map created by the attorney or their case expert. Each party must appropriately follow the Texas Rules of Evidence in order to have any evidence deemed admissible.
Cross-examination
During cross-examination, the defense attorney asks the plaintiff’s witnesses a series of direct questions to assess the reliability and consistency of their accounts. Direct questions are typically crafted to force the witness to answer in a yes or no statement. The attorney often asks questions that challenge the witness’s motives, evidence, or expertise in ways that are difficult to dispute. The purpose of cross-examination is to paint the opposing side in a negative light for the jury by guiding the witness into admitting to certain inconsistencies or flaws in their statements.
Closing arguments
During closing arguments, both parties have the chance to present a summary of the most important elements of their case and emphasize why their version is more credible than the opposing side’s. The plaintiff’s attorney makes their closing argument by reaffirming the strongest points of their case and outlining the damages they seek compensation for. Then, the defendant’s attorney will attempt to counter-argue the plaintiff’s arguments by pointing out contradictions or weaknesses in their statements and clarifying any misconceptions about the defendant’s claim.
The plaintiff usually gets a short rebuttal period where they can address the defendant’s statements made about them. Closing arguments are designed to appeal to the jury’s emotions and rationale so they can empathize with the parties while also understanding their legal positions.
Jury deliberation
Jury deliberation is when the jury goes to a private room to discuss the facts of both sides together and votes on who they believe should win. During this time, the jury is provided the jury charge and is able to review all forms of evidence, consider the percentage of liability of each party, and apply legal standards to the case. If the jury can not agree, it is considered a “hung jury,” and they may have to continue deliberating until it gets resolved, or the case will have to go through a retrial.
Verdict
The judge or jury determines if the plaintiff met their burden of proof and renders a verdict. If the plaintiff wins, the defendant must pay the plaintiff an amount of money to compensate them for their injuries. The types of compensatory damages that are considered when awarding a plaintiff include pain and suffering, lost wages, medical expenses, loss of consortium, and emotional distress.
If the plaintiff loses, the case is dismissed and the defendant is released from all accusations unless an appeal is made. If the judge allows an appeal, the case will be taken to a higher court also known as an appellate court, where the case is reevaluated for a second time.
Participating in the stages of a trial without legal representation can be challenging and confusing, putting you at risk for an unfavorable outcome. With the help of an attorney, you can rest easy knowing that your case is in professional and experienced hands. Call (866) 434-0014 today to speak with a Sneed and Mitchell attorney about how to obtain legal representation for your case.
What Is The Burden of Proof in Texas Personal Injury Trials?
In Texas, the burden of proof in personal injury trials requires a plaintiff to provide enough evidence to the court that demonstrates how the defendant caused them injuries and why they are entitled to compensation. A preponderance of the evidence must be shown, meaning the plaintiff must prove that the narrative they tell the jury is more likely to be true than not. There are 5 elements of negligence that the accuser must prove in order for the burden of proof standards to be met. The role of the defendant is to counter-argue the plaintiff’s claims and prove their innocence.
Will My Personal Injury Case Go to Trial?
About 97% of personal injury cases here in Texas settle without going to trial. This means that the bulk of cases are resolved with an insurance adjuster in the pre-litigation stage. The other 3% go to trial because the insurance company representing the at-fault party fails to offer a fair settlement for the damages suffered by the victim. Your personal injury attorneys use demand letter to try to resolve your claim as soon as they effectively can, but your lawyer should not settle a case that does not adequately compensate you for the injuries.
Frequently Asked Questions About Personal Injury Lawsuits in Texas
Here are the frequently asked questions about personal injury lawsuits in Texas:
How long does a personal injury trial typically last in Texas?
Some trials in Texas last a few days, while others can take several weeks or even months to resolve depending on the complexity of the case and the number of parties or witnesses involved. In cases that include a great deal of evidence, a jury might take a few additional days to deliberate before returning a verdict.
Why do personal injury claims go to trial?
Most personal injury cases in Texas settle without ever going to trial. But, about 3% of claims proceed to trial after the because the insurance company, through its adjusters, refuses to provide a fair settlement to the injured party. Some of the reasons claims don't settle during the negotiation phase include the following:
Contested Liability
A liability dispute occurs when the insurance company decides to dispute their client’s responsibility, either in part or in full. This means that the insurance company denies that their insured is at fault or responsible for an accident and could even wrongfully place fault on you or your loved one. Generally, even with the presence of additional evidence, an insurance company and its adjusters will not often receive a negative determination. When the plaintiff's counsel faces a situation of contested liability, the only option is to file the lawsuit in order to move the case forward. Within the Discovery phase, both sides are able to review additional information for the first time, which often helps to determine who is at fault in a tort case. If the defendants refuse to adjust their stance, the case is then tried in District Court here in Texas.
Disagreement on Damages
Personal injuries go to trial when there’s a disagreement between both parties about the amount and type of damages that need compensation. The injured plaintiff might argue that their degree of disfigurement has caused them pain and suffering, and the non-economic loss should be accounted for in the total damages. The defendant may argue that the causation of the injury is incorrectly distributed and that the plaintiff is liable for a higher percentage than what they claim. Another common disagreement with damages is the necessity of medical bills, which can significantly contribute to the total compensation if they are added.
Failure to Negotiate
Negotiations are meant to help two parties find a middle ground between them so they can settle on an agreement, but this method is not always successful. Negotiations often fail for multiple reasons including disagreements over liability, inadequate evidence, disputes over damages, insufficient settlement offers, and mismatched expectations. Discussing matters that have the potential to greatly affect each party’s life often creates an emotionally charged atmosphere, which can make it difficult to have a sensible conversation. Some parties may even act in bad faith toward the other, purposely delaying or denying the claim for their own benefit. Negotiations that fail are usually taken to court for a trial so they can be handled in a fair legal manner.
Tactics by the Insurance Adjuster
Personal injury cases often go to trial when insurance adjusters abuse their authority by using manipulative and exploitative tactics on claimants. One of the most common tactics they use on claimants is getting them to perform an Independent Medical Examination (IME). This exam is not like a regular doctor's visit, as it is conducted specifically for insurance companies to create a medical record on the claimant which can be used to the insurers’ advantage. IME doctors are paid by the insurance company, which often leads them to align with the company’s best interests and downplay the extent of a claimant’s injuries. Another common tactic insurance adjusters use is purposely delaying claims by being unresponsive and slow to make the claimant feel pressured to accept a settlement before their time runs out. If these tactics are recognized early by the claimant, their case may have a chance to be saved in court.
Statute of Limitations Issues
The statute of limitations is a law that gives claimants a certain amount of time to commence litigation over a claim. Most personal injury cases have 2 years from the day of the accident to be filed, but certain circumstances may interfere or change this time frame. If claimants believe their situation deserves an extension of time, they must take their case to trial for it to be reviewed by a judge or jury. Some common reasons for extensions in the statute of limitations include newly found injuries from the accident, mental incapacities, fraud, or unexpected and uncontrollable situations.
If you have a case that is a part of the 3% that must go to trial, don’t go unprepared and alone. Contact Sneed and Mitchell at (866) 434-0014 to get a free consultation about how you can obtain legal representation with us. Our injury team will speak on your behalf, help you collect evidence, negotiate fair compensation for you, and more.
How long does it take a case to get to trial in Texas?
The time it takes for a case to go to trial in Texas is usually between 12 months to 2 years, but it depends on how intricate the case is, how long negotiations take, what the court’s schedule looks like, and how long the pre-trial process takes. If the case has clear evidence that points to only one outcome, it is usually resolved before 12 months.
How close to trial can you settle a case in Texas?
You can settle a case at any time before trial, and even during trial at any time before the jury returns a verdict. The closer the case gets to the trial date, the more likely it will end in settlement. Oftentimes, an approaching trial date causes the defendants to make compensation offers that are more in line with a plaintiff’s expectation.
Why might a judge prefer a settlement over a trial?
Judges generally like to see claims settled before trial because it saves the State resources and also reduces the court’s docket of cases. Judges can also tell by the facts of many cases that the outcome is predictable and more ripe to be resolved by mediation or settlement. Settlements with predictable resolutions are best handled by the parties involved because a jury could always return an unpredictable decision.