October 29, 2012 | Articles, Tim Herman
By Miriam Rozen
Tim Herman says it took eight years for his client’s complicated breach-of-contract dispute against Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) and the Fort Worth Transportation Authority (The T) to get to trial, but it was worth the wait. In an Oct. 5 final judgment, his client Agent Systems Inc. won $1.41 million â€” $850,000 in damages plus $566,000 in prejudgment interest.
“It gives us some satisfaction because I’ve been trying to get them into court for years,” Herman, a partner in Austin’s Howry, Breen & Herman, says of DART and The T, both quasi-government agencies.
In its Sept. 24, 2010, amended petition in Agent Systems Inc. v. Dallas Area Rapid Transit, et al., the plaintiff alleged it entered into a 2009 contract with the defendants to produce fare box systems, but the defendants refused to pay for them and for the material necessary for the prototypes.
In its Oct. 2, 2009, answer, The T argued among other things that Agent Systems was barred from recovery “pursuant to the doctrine of the law of the case” and that the statute of limitations barred the plaintiff’s claims. In its March 18, 2008, answer, DART alleged among other things that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and that Agent Systems had assumed risk when it produced the fare box systems.
After two weeks of trial testimony, the jury issued a verdict on Nov. 22, 2011, that found the defendants failed to comply with the contract. Jurors awarded Dallas-based Agent Systems $850,000 in damages for the costs to produce the fare box systems. In his final judgment, 236th District Judge Tom Lowe of Tarrant County added $566,000 in prejudgment interest for a total of $1.41 million.
Albon O. Head Jr., a partner in the Fort Worth office of Jackson Walker who represents The T, says his client will continue fighting the plaintiff in court. “We think that the judgment was entered incorrectly,” he says.
DART senior associate general counsel Harold McKeever says the agency will appeal the final judgment. McKeever says the case presented difficulties for both sides because the factual background was based on events that occurred more than a decade ago.
September 5, 2012 | Articles, Glen Wilkerson
AUSTIN LEGAL NEWS
To Glen Wilkerson, itâ€™s all about the people.
Whether itâ€™s a client, a fellow lawyer, or a judge, the long-time Austin attorney has perfected the art of fully engaging with whoever he is sitting across from.
So itâ€™s no surprise that Wilkerson, who joined the law firm of Howry, Breen & Herman LLP over the summer, identified one of the biggest challenges for the profession as making the cost of litigation more reasonable. â€œMost folks as individuals cannot afford to litigate even what may appear to be the simplest of disputes,â€ he said. That bothers Wilkerson. And that fact makes him a good candidate for our Wednesday interview.
1. Describe your legal practice?
GW: Howry, Breen & Herman LLP is primarily a civil litigation trial firm. These cases can be in state court, federal court, or, as is becoming more common, arbitration. The types of cases range from Plaintiffâ€™s personal injury, commercial and construction to commercial, real estate, construction and professional negligence defense which is an accurate description of my practice over the last 8 to 10 years. Our clients vary from individuals, small businesses, to large corporate and/or institutional entities. Our client objective is to zealously but ethically advocate our clientâ€™s causes with the goal of reaching an acceptable outcome, hopefully on some economic basis that makes sense in the context of what and how much is in dispute.
2. What are the biggest challenges of those you interact with on the legal front, and what is the key to helping them resolve those challenges.
GW: The biggest challenge is the cost of litigation. It is too expensive. Most folks as individuals cannot afford to litigate even what appear to be the simplest of disputes. The result of this reality is that the court house â€“ – and access to public justice â€“ – is off limits to all but a select few who are either very poor or those who are more wealthy. The paramount key to keeping the cost of litigation more within limits is teamwork between lawyers and our judges. Judges must be involved with limiting cost, and certainly the exploding cost of â€œelectronic discoveryâ€ (i.e. emails etc.). If they are not involved, then the lawyer who hopes to control costs has no hope of avoiding an aggressive opposing advocate who has no practical limit on what his or her client will spend. Some judges are very willing to get involved in this process. Others are not. Our legal rules for resolving disputes are sound and make good sense. But they cannot be enforced to perfection in most cases in that the costs will be great for the amount in controversy. If this issue is not resolved, soon a high proportion of citizens will attempt to represent themselves. Legal Zoom is not just a product. It is a harbinger of the future for the masses if judges, lawyers and the legislature do not get their act together and make the system work for all citizens with less transaction costs.
3. What are the advantages to practicing law in Austin?
GW: The lawyers in Austin are of the highest quality and comparable to any city or location in the country. Our Judges on every level â€“ – city, state, federal â€“ – are impartial, well respected and interested in reaching a fair and common sense result with the bounds of the law. We are blessed to be able to state to our clients that they can almost always get a fair trial in our area.
4. How would you improve the legal profession if you could?
GW: I would dramatically increase the interaction of the lawyers and the judges. When I started my practice, you could have personal access to a district judge. You could get something done at a fraction of the cost of what the time and effort is today. You knew with a phone call what could be done and what should be done. This gave you the ability to reduce the costs to the client to achieve a reasonable result. If the lawyers are left to themselves, there is too much of a driving incentive to keep the file open so that there is no control over costs. The judge can do so much to move the process along â€“ – fairly and with due regard for all parties. Whether this will ever happen again is an open question. I am not holding my breath
5. What or who was your biggest influence in becoming a lawyer and why?
GW: Fear. My wife. I got married. Two months later I started law school. I had no job prospects if I failed. My wife was smart, capable, a hard worker, and had a wonderful job. I was under the gun. I had met one lawyer for about 10 minutes before I went to law school. I was blessed to go to the University of Texas Law School. At the time I was in law school, Texas was, I believe, in the top five law schools in the country. Dean Page Keeton was a legend. If you applied yourself, one had all the opportunity and the world at your doorstep.
June 7, 2012 | Randy Howry
Randy Howry has been named
‘2012 Best Lawyer of the Year’ by Best LawyersÂ®.
Click to download and read article.
Tags: Best Lawyers, Real Estate
May 31, 2012 | In The News, Sean Breen
By Patrick George
Former Austin Police Association President Mike Sheffield is seeking depositions for a possible lawsuit against his ex-employer, the largest statewide police union in Texas, which fired him last year.
Sheffield, who was fired in July from his job as a training coordinator and field service representative for the Combined Law Enforcement Associations of Texas, has filed a petition in Travis County state District Court seeking information about allegations of criminal acts he said the union made against him.
The petition said Sheffield is seeking documents and statements from union Executive Director John Burpo, board President Todd Harrison and others.
“We have reason to believe the board members of CLEAT circulated defamatory comments and wrongfully accused Mr. Sheffield of committing a crime,” said Sheffield’s attorney, Austin lawyer Sean E. Breen.
John Curtis, CLEAT’s corporate counsel, said the union is considering whether to pursue criminal charges against Sheffield. CLEAT provides legal representation, lobbying and other support services for Texas’ law enforcement officers.
“He took and destroyed work product we strongly believe belonged to this organization,” Curtis said, saying officials there believe Sheffield violated the state’s computer crime laws.
Breen said that Sheffield was specifically accused of deleting information from a CLEAT computer and that the accusations are false. He said that multiple agencies â€” including federal authorities and district attorneys in Travis and Williamson counties â€” did not bring charges against Sheffield.
“In law enforcement, reputation is everything,” Breen said. “When someone is accused of a crime, it cuts to the very heart of their integrity as a police officer.
Law enforcement officials discussed the matter last year, but CLEAT never formally asked the Travis County district attorney’s office to investigate the claims, Assistant District Attorney Gail Van Winkle said.
Sheffield served as president of the Austin Police Association union from 1998 until 2006. After retiring from the Police Department, he was employed by CLEAT until last year.
Breen said Sheffield has not decided whether to sue CLEAT and is pursuing a federal claim through the National Labor Relations Board to get his job back.
Curtis said CLEAT is looking into asking a federal judge to stop the possible lawsuit until the labor claim is resolved.
“This is just another legal shenanigan he’s pulling,” Curtis said. “The other shoe hasn’t fallen yet. It’s going to be a bumpy road.”
According to a CLEAT memo from July, Sheffield was fired for “interfering with the (Austin Police Association)” and for attempting to publicly discredit the statewide union.
Sheffield said he believes he was fired after he raised concerns about an arrangement between CLEAT and the Austin Police Association. Under that arrangement, Harrison, an Austin Police Department sergeant, worked for CLEAT full time funded by officers’ earned sick time while CLEAT gave the Austin Police Association $50,000. That was not mentioned in Sheffield’s termination memo, which he provided.
After the American-Statesman reported on the agreement, CLEAT began reimbursing the City of Austin for Harrison’s salary and benefits. He is currently vice president of the Austin Police Association.
Contact Patrick George at â€¨445-3548
CORRECTION: This story originally stated Mike Sheffield had been cleared of wrongdoing. Charges have not been brought against him.
Tags: criminal charges, fired, police union
May 28, 2012 | Articles, Jay Paul Warren, Sean Breen
Click to download and read this article.
Man, 23, dove into shallow pool
at apartment and broke his neck.
Verdict: (P) $12,393,542.00
Case Type: Swimming Pool, Recreation
-Swimming Pool, Premises Liability â€“
Apartment, Negligence â€“ Negligence Per Se
Case: Jordan VanDusen v. Aspen Square Management Na Longhorn Bentley LLC, d/b/a Longhorn Landing Apartments, No. D-1-GN-09-001608
Venue: Travis County District Court, 53rd, TX
Judge: Orlinda Naranjo
- Sean Breen; Howry, Breen & Herman; Austin, TX for Jordan VanDusen
- Jay Warren; Howry Breen & Herman; Austin, TX for Jordan VanDusen
- David Felton Ph.D.; Clinical Psychology; Austin, TX called by: Sean Breen, Jay Warren
- Mary Gonzales M.D.; Physical Medicine; Austin, TX called by: Sean Breen, Jay Warren
- T. Harrell Ph.D.; Life Care Planning; Austin, TX called by: Sean Breen, Jay Warren
- John Trapani Ph.D.; Economics; New Orleans, LA called by: Sean Breen, Jay Warren
- Kim Tyson; Aquatics; Pflugerville, TX called by: Sean Breen, Jay Warren
- Richard Hinrichs Ph.D.; Diving; Phoenix, AZ called by: Sean Breen, Jay Warren
- Christopher Lakso; Animation/Computer Animation; Phoenix, AZ called by: Sean Breen, Jay Warren
- Jeff Ray; Ray Valdez, McChristian & Jeans; El Paso, TX for Longhorn Bentley LLC, Aspen Square Management
- Farhad Madani; Pools; Austin, TX called by: Jeff Ray
- Robert Bux M.D.; Toxicology; Colorado Springs, CO called by: Jeff Ray
- Stephen Horner Ph.D.; Economics; Corpus Christi, TX called by: Jeff Ray
- Donna Johnson; Rehabilitation Counseling; Corpus Christi, TX called by: Jeff Ray
- James McElhaney Ph.D., P.E.; Biomechanics; Durham, NC called by: Jeff Ray
- Roger Nightingale Ph.D.; Biomechanical; Durham, NC called by: Jeff Ray
- John Reid Ph.D.; Psychology/Counseling; San Antonio, TX called by: Jeff Ray
- Richard Senelick M.D.; Physical Rehabilitation; San Antonio, TX called by: Jeff Ray
Insurer: Lexington Insurance Co. for both defendants (policy limit $1 million) St.Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company for both defendants (policy limit $25 million) American International Specialty Lines Insurance Co. for both defendants (policy limit $25 million)
Facts: On the night of June 11, 2005, plaintiff Jordan VanDusen, 23, a computer consultant and musician, was at a party at Longhorn Landing Apartments, an Austin apartment complex managed by Aspen Square Management Austin. VanDusen was a former resident of the complex, which caters to college students. He and other partygoers were drinking. At around 2 a.m., VanDusen and some friends entered one of the complexâ€™s two swimming pool areas, which were open 24 hours a day, seven days a week. VanDusen attempted a shallow â€œracing diveâ€ into the pool, but the water level was 18 inches low, resulting in a steeper angle of entry. He hit his head on the bottom and broke his neck. He is paralyzed. When filled to normal level, the pool was between 3 feet, 6 inches deep and 4 feet, 6 inches deep. It was low thatÂ night because of a pool equipment problem. The complex had added water to the pool on June 10. At about 10 p.m. on June 11, security guard Amanda Walker came on duty and noticed that the water level was low. The apartment manager was still on site at this time. At about 1:25 a.m., Walker and another guard walked by the pool again and noted that it was low, and alerted a supervisor. The supervisor called all emergency contacts for the management company, and according to the plaintiff, no one responded. Several Aspen Square employees lived at the complex. The property owner was Longhorn Bentley. VanDusen sued Aspen Square and Longhorn Bentley for premises liability, arguing that, by common law and statute, the pool should have been closed because of the water level. VanDusen had been at the pool more than a hundred times and safely performed many dives there, as had many others, including employees of the complex. VanDusen acknowledged a momentary lapse in judgment, that he should not have dived into the pool that night, and that he regrets not noticing the water level was low before diving.Â Aspen Square Management, which was operating 80 properties nationwide, had no written risk management policy or written safety policies for its pools, its most dangerous amenity.Â According to the plaintiff Longhorn Landing allowed and encourage drinking in and around the pool, and its pool safety man was unaware of applicable laws and codes. VanDusen also argued that the complexâ€™s local emergency call system and personnel were inadequate and that, the weekend before the incident, an on-call worker ignored three emergency calls. The security guards did not have authority to use the locks that were restring on the gates or the â€œpool closedâ€ signs that were in a nearby shed, the plaintiff argued. According to the plaintiff, no one employed by the complex knew of the incident, and the pool remained open until Monday, June 13. Plaintiffsâ€™ counsel said they argued for 7f5% fault on defendants. Defense counsel said Plaintiffsâ€™ counsel argued for 80 to 90 percent fault on defendants. The defendants denied the allegations and argued that Jordan was at fault. They noted that, about 45 minutes after the incident, Jordanâ€™s blood alcohol level was .09 and that he was aware of the numerous, conspicuous â€œno divingâ€ signs around the pool. Also, according to the defense, an employee did respond to a 1:25 a.m. emergency page, though not till after VanDusenâ€™s injury. Plaintiffâ€™s counsel said the defendants were never able to identify the employee. The defendants were treated as a single entity (â€œAspenâ€) in the jury charge. The jury questions were: 1. Whether VanDusen was negligent; 2. Whether Aspen was negligent per se for failing to maintain the water at the required level, failing to maintain pool equipment as required, failing to provide the required lighting, or failing to close the pool if required; 3. Whether Aspen was otherwise negligent; 4A. Comparative responsibility between Aspen for negligence per se only and VanDusen; 4B. Comparative responsibility between Aspen for other negligence only and VanDusen; 5. Damages
Injury: VanDusen broke his neck and is permanently paralyzed from the neck down. He was hospitalized from June 12 to July 5 and was immediately diagnosed as a quadriplegic. Initial findings showed C4 fracture with C4-onC5 subluxation. He underwent a fusion of C4 and C5 and returned to the intensive care unit. He then underwent a tracheotomy tube placement, PEG tub placement and several bronchoscopies. He was then transferred to The Institute for Research and Rehabilitation in Houston from July 5 to August 22 and underwent physical occupational, and speech therapies. He also attended the RAPS session for spinal chord education. At discharge, he was sitting for four hours twice a day at 80 degrees. When his insurance company dropped coverage, he transferred to a New York hospital and obtained Medicaid and Medicare benefits. He spent Aug. 22 to Sept. 23 at one New York hospital and Sept. 23 to Nov. 23 at Mount Sinai Medical Center. He experienced increasing episodes of autonomic dysreflexia, headaches, and severe pain. Bladder and bowel management was ongoing. He also developed a stage IV decubitus ulcer. VanDusen continued to be hospitalized off and on as needed for various medical complications relating to quadriplegia, including severe pain, decubitus ulcers, and respiratory illnesses. He requires round-the-clock care. At the time of the incident, his attorneys said, VanDusen was a successful musician, with a promising life ahead of him, and he was active, successful, ambitious, and engaged in building a productive future. He sought past and future medical bills, lost earning capacity, disfigurement, physical impairment, and pain and suffering, and he asked the jury for a total of $25,000,000, including $1.5 million in past medical. His attorneys reported that the life care plan was $10 million, and defense counsel reported that it was $11.3 million.
Verdict Information: The jury found the defendants negligent and, as to the water level alone, negligent per se. The jury also found VanDusen negligent. The first comparative fault question was answered 49 percent for the defendants negligence per se only, and 51 percent for VanDusen. The second comparative fault question was answered 51 percent for the defendants for other negligence only and 49 percent for VanDusen. The jury found damages of $12,393,542. As requested by the plaintiffâ€™s attorneys, the court entered judgment against the defendants jointly and severally in the amount of $6,636,709.25, which is the sum of 51 percent of the damages and prejudgment interest. The defendants plan to appeal.
Jordan VanDusen $1,500,000 Personal Injury: Past Medical Cost $4,645,789 Personal Injury: Future Medical Cost $286,000 Personal Injury: Past Physical Impairment $1,714,000 Personal Injury: Future Physical Impairment $195,947 Personal Injury: Past Lost Eearning Capability $1,051,806 Personal Injury: Future Lost Earnings Capability $143,000 Personal Injury: Past Pain and Suffering $857,000 Personal Injury: Future Pain and Suffering $286,000 Personal Injury: Past Disfigurement $1,714,000 Personal Injury: Future Disfigurement
Editorâ€™s Comments: This report is based on information that was provided by plaintiffâ€™s counsel and defense counsel.
Tags: negligence, premises liability
Next Page »