James Roy Cowan, Jr., committed to the San Antonio State Hospital, hung himself with his own suspenders. His family sued the state-run hospital for not preventing the suicide. Problem: Texas law prohibits lawsuits against state entities. Plaintiffs’ creative solution: an exception permits lawsuits against the state when the state injures someone by “using” “tangible personal property”–for example, if a state employee negligently drives an automobile. Thus, plaintiffs argued, the hospital “misused” the suspenders by permitting them to remain in Cowan’s custody. A trial court and appellate court were prepared to let this theory go to trial, but the Texas Supreme Court unanimously reversed last January.
Reasonable minds may differ as a matter of public policy whether Texas taxpayers should be on the hook for damages for failing to prevent a suicide, but it hardly seems controversial that the Texas Supreme Court correctly held that the Texas legislature has not made that decision.
Except that “Texas Watch,” a plaintiffs’ lawyers’ front group (see Mar. 11), issued a report complaining that the Texas Supreme Court was “anti-consumer.” It came to this conclusion by tallying various pro- and con votes in 52 cases, and noting that the Texas Supreme Court votes against plaintiffs in 82% of that sample.
Of course, this is hardly sufficient to prove any such thing. Perhaps, as in Cowan, the problem is that the lower courts are too aggressively activist and pro-plaintiff. If so, the Texas Supreme Court’s ratio reflects that it’s simply being more reasonable than the decisions of the courts it was reviewing.
One might complain that I’m nitpicking at the Texas Watch report — except that that same report included a “Terrible Ten”, and Cowan was singled out as the most terrible of the ten at the top of the list, as the anecdote that Texas Watch thought most helpful to their argument. Leave aside for the moment whether a decision that protects Texas taxpayers is “against the public” as Texas Watch portrays it. It is telling that Texas Watch believes that it is the responsibility of the Texas Supreme Court to create rights for plaintiffs where the legislature has refused to do so; while newspapers printed rebuttals from a Texas Supreme Court spokesperson, they did little to evaluate the relative truth claims of the competing soundbites and let Texas Watch dictate the headlines. (Christy Hoppe, “High court rarely backs consumer, study says”, Dallas Morning News, Oct. 6; John Moritz, “Court goes largely against public, group says”, Star-Telegram, Oct. 6; Tama Swan, “Report finds past year’s Texas high court rulings lopsided”, Daily Texan, Oct. 7) (via Bashman).
Comments are closed.