Zachry Construction Corp., et al. v. Texas A&M University may be one of those rare cases where both sides win something. The case arose out of the 1999 Texas A&M bonfire collapse, which killed 12 students and injured 27 others. In a per curiam opinion issued today in Zachry, the Texas Supreme Court withdrew its order granting the petitions for review filed by Zachry and Scott-Macon Ltd. as improvidently granted. Zachry and Scott-Macon are defendants in the underlying personal injury and wrongful death suits stemming from the bonfire accident. The Supreme Court’s opinion provides the following background on the case: Zachry and Scott-Macon had sought to designate Texas A&M as a responsible third party so that its percentage of responsibility could be submitted to the jury. But Texas A&M challenged its designation as a responsible third party on sovereign immunity grounds. Although the trial court rejected Texas A&M’s arguments, Waco’s 10th Court of Appeals reversed and rendered a judgment dismissing all claims against Texas A&M. Zachry and Scott-Macon petitioned the Supreme Court for review. But Texas A&M University entered into “a master settlement agreement” with the plaintiffs. That means Texas A&M University is a “settling person.” As noted in the Supreme Court’s opinion, Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code §33.003(3) requires a jury to make a determination of proportionate responsibility as to “each settling person.” That should reduce potential liability of Zachry and Scott-Macon. Texas A&M also wins because the 10th Court’s decision that it has sovereign immunity remains intact. Ben Taylor, a partner in Fulbright & Jaworski in Dallas, argued for Zachry and Scott-Macon before the Supreme Court on Sept. 8 but declines comment on the case. Jim Ho, state’s solicitor general, who argued on Texas A&M’s behalf before the high court, also declines comment.
-- Mary Alice Robbins
-- Mary Alice Robbins
Comments