Texas Verdicts

Plaintiff(s):

Neida Galindo (Female, 48 Years), 

Sophia Galindo (Female, 71 Years), 

Irasema Hinostroza Garcia (Female), 

Estate of Manuel Galindo-Camacho (Male, 42 Years), 

Yatzari Nohemi Galindo Hinostroza (Female, 15 Years), 

Jazmin Elizabeth Galindo Hinostroza (Female, 18 Years)

Plaintiff Attorney(s):

Kevin W. Liles;
Liles Harris White PLLC;
Corpus Christi,
TX,
for
Irasema Hinostroza Garcia, Yatzari Nohemi Galindo Hinostroza, Jazmin Elizabeth Galindo Hinostroza ■ Philip G. Bernal;
Ketterman, Rowland & Westlund;
San Antonio,
TX,
for
Neida Galindo, Sophia Galindo, Estate of Manuel Galindo-Camacho ■ Stuart R. White;
Liles Harris White PLLC;
Corpus Christi,
TX,
for
Irasema Hinostroza Garcia, Yatzari Nohemi Galindo Hinostroza, Jazmin Elizabeth Galindo Hinostroza

Plaintiff Expert(s):

Matthew Meyerhoff; Trucking Industry; Baltic,
SD called by:
Kevin W. Liles, Philip G. Bernal, Stuart R. White ■ Michael Reyes; Ph.D.; Accident Reconstruction; San Antonio,
TX called by:
Kevin W. Liles, Philip G. Bernal, Stuart R. White

Defendant(s):

David Shoots, 

O’Reilly Auto Enterprises LLC

Defense Attorney(s):

Paul A. Bezney;
Adkerson, Hauder & Bezney P.C.;
Dallas,
TX,
for
David Shoots, O’Reilly Auto Enterprises LLC ■ J. Kevin Kindred;
Adkerson, Hauder & Bezney P.C.;
Dallas,
TX,
for
David Shoots, O’Reilly Auto Enterprises LLC

Defendant Expert(s):

James Evans;
Accident Reconstruction;
College Station,
TX called by:
Paul A. Bezney, J. Kevin Kindred

Insurer(s):

Safety National Casualty Corp. for both defendants

On Feb. 28, 2015, plaintiffs’ decedent Manuel Galindo-Camacho, 42, a drywall laborer, was driving a minivan in the left eastbound lane of Highway 29 outside Burnet. It was about 6 a.m., drizzling and below freezing, and the roads were icy. Several miles to the east, David Shoots was traveling westbound in an 18-wheeler, transporting hazardous materials. He allegedly crossed a railroad track at 51 mph without stopping and a quarter mile later lost control on a curve while traveling 57 to 59 mph. The 18-wheeler hit a guardrail and jackknifed. The trailer came to rest with its lights out and blocking Galindo-Camacho’s lane. Galindo-Camacho collided with the unlit trailer and was killed. Galindo-Camacho’s daughters sued Shoots and Shoots’ employer, O’Reilly Auto Enterprises LLC, operating as O’Reilly Auto Parts, with whom Shoots was in the course and scope of his employment at the time of the accident. The suit alleged that Shoots’ driving was unsafe and that O’Reilly failed to take Shoots off the road months before the crash, due to an unsafe driving record. The suit alleged negligence and gross negligence. The decedent’s widow, mother and estate later joined the suit. Plaintiffs’ counsel argued that Shoots was involved in prior unsafe-driving incidents during several years of employment with O’Reilly, which should have disqualified him from driving. Although O’Reilly had an internal driver review points system that was intended to keep unsafe drivers off the road, plaintiffs’ counsel maintained that the points system was flawed and failed to identify problem drivers, such as Shoots. Plaintiffs’ trucking industry expert opined that O’Reilly did not enforce its policies. This expert also mentioned that Shoots had a conviction for driving under the influence. However, this statement reportedly violated a defense motion in limine and, following objection by defense counsel, the court instructed the jury to disregard it. A mistrial was also requested by the defense, but the motion was denied. Plaintiffs’ counsel contended that the testimony in question had been solicited by defense counsel. The plaintiffs alleged that Shoots lost control of the truck because he was driving too fast for the existing conditions and using his cell phone. Accident reconstruction experts for both sides opined that Shoots was traveling 57 to 59 mph when he lost control, with plaintiffs’ accident reconstruction expert stating that Galindo-Camacho was going 35 to 46 mph at the time of the accident. Shoots was also negligent, the plaintiffs argued, for leaving his unlit trailer blocking lanes of traffic without putting out warning cones or triangles to warn approaching motorists of the disabled vehicle in the roadway. Plaintiffs’ counsel introduced police dash camera video showing the dark, low-visibility conditions. Plaintiffs’ counsel also asserted that Shoots violated federal regulations by not stopping at the railroad crossing. Had he stopped, plaintiffs’ counsel argued, he would not have been going as fast around the curve and would not have lost control. The defense did not dispute that Shoots’ negligence was a proximate cause of the accident, but it argued that Galindo-Camacho was also negligent in driving too fast for the existing conditions and not keeping a proper lookout. Defense counsel also argued that Galindo-Camacho should have been able to stop in time. The defense asserted that, because of reflective tape on the disabled trailer, Galindo-Camacho should have seen the trailer from 1,200 feet away. Also, defense counsel noted that several drivers arriving on the scene later were able to stop and avoid any collision. In response, plaintiffs’ counsel maintained that Shoots’ loss of control resulted in a sudden emergency for Galindo-Camacho. O’Reilly argued that it was a safe company and that it met and exceeded all applicable motor carrier regulations. Defense counsel introduced a company snapshot from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s website to support this argument. The defense also noted that most of Shoots’ prior incidents took place on O’Reilly property. The defense further argued that weather conditions caused the accident. Police dash-camera video showed the investigating officer pulling up to the scene and losing control of her car on the ice. The video also showed the officer slipping on the ice when she exited her vehicle. The defense’s accident reconstruction expert opined that, because the air bag control module in Galindo-Camacho’s vehicle lost power in the accident, its data was incomplete. Therefore, the defense expert asserted that the calculations of the plaintiffs’ accident reconstructionist were faulty and likely underestimated the decedent’s speed. He agreed, though, that it was possible the decedent’s speed was as low as 46 mph. Shoots did not attend trial. He testified in his deposition that he stopped at the railroad track and that he was going 45 mph when he lost control. Defense counsel reportedly acknowledged at trial that this testimony was not true.

Galindo-Camacho was killed instantly. He is survived by his wife, two teenage daughters, and his mother, all of whom sought damages for past and future pecuniary loss, loss of companionship and society, and mental anguish. The decedent’s wife was plaintiff Neida Galindo, 48, a housekeeping manager. His daughters were plaintiffs Jazmin Elizabeth Galindo Hinostroza, about 17, a student, and plaintiff Yatzari Nohemi Galindo Hinostroza, about 14, also a student. They lived in Fredericksburg. The biological mother was initially a plaintiff as their next friend. However, by the time of trial, because Jazmin was 18 and could serve as her sister’s next friend, their mother was no longer in the case. The decedent’s mother, plaintiff Sophia Galindo, 71, retired, lived in Mexico. The estate sought damages for the decedent’s mental anguish, which was limited to his anticipation of the impending accident.

The jury found negligence and gross negligence on the part of the defendants, but no negligence on the part of Galindo-Camacho. The jury attributed 60-percent liability to O’Reilly and 40-percent to Shoots. The jury awarded $37,945,000. However, the verdict was subject to a high/low agreement of $9 million/$3 million, which reduced the jury’s award to $9 million.

Neida Galindo: $500,000 Wrongful Death: Past Loss Of Society Companionship; $4,000,000 Wrongful Death: Future Loss Of Society Companionship; $60,000 Wrongful Death: Past Loss Of Pecuniary Contribution; $1,800,000 Wrongful Death: Future Loss Of Pecuniary Contribution; $1,000,000 Wrongful Death: Past Mental Anguish; $3,000,000 Wrongful Death: Future Mental Anguish; Sophia Galindo: $250,000 Wrongful Death: Past Loss Of Society Companionship; $1,000,000 Wrongful Death: Future Loss Of Society Companionship; $15,000 Wrongful Death: Past Loss Of Pecuniary Contribution; $600,000 Wrongful Death: Future Loss Of Pecuniary Contribution; $1,000,000 Wrongful Death: Past Mental Anguish; $2,000,000 Wrongful Death: Future Mental Anguish; Estate of Manuel Galindo-Camacho: $2,000,000 Personal Injury: Past Mental Anguish; Jazmin Elizabeth Galindo Hinostroza: $500,000 Wrongful Death: Past Loss Of Society Companionship; $3,000,000 Wrongful Death: Future Loss Of Society Companionship; $60,000 Wrongful Death: Past Loss Of Pecuniary Contribution; $1,800,000 Wrongful Death: Future Loss Of Pecuniary Contribution; $1,000,000 Wrongful Death: Past Mental Anguish; $4,000,000 Wrongful Death: Future Mental Anguish; Yatzari Nohemi Galindo Hinostroza: $500,000 Wrongful Death: Past Loss Of Society Companionship; $3,000,000 Wrongful Death: Future Loss Of Society Companionship; $60,000 Wrongful Death: Past Loss Of Pecuniary Contribution; $1,800,000 Wrongful Death: Future Loss Of Pecuniary Contribution; $1,000,000 Wrongful Death: Past Mental Anguish; $4,000,000 Wrongful Death: Future Mental Anguish

Actual Award:

$9,000,000

Judge:

Tonya Parker

Demand:

$17 million (per defense counsel); confidential (per plaintiffs’ counsel)

Offer:

$750,000 (per defense counsel); confidential (per plaintiffs’ counsel)

Trial Length:

6
 days

Trial Deliberations:

5
 hours

Jury Composition:

4 male/ 8 female

This report is based on information that was provided by plaintiffs’ and defense counsel.