Arredondo v. Dugger
347 S.W.3d 757
Tex. App.2011Background
- Arredondo filed a wrongful death and survival action against Dugger for her son Martinez's death, alleging delayed 911 and failure to disclose heroin use.
- Dugger asserted the common-law unlawful acts doctrine as an affirmative defense and the trial court granted summary judgment on this basis.
- The trial court dismissed Arredondo's claims with prejudice; Arredondo appealed arguing the unlawful acts doctrine does not apply to wrongful death and is superseded by §93.001.
- The court reviews whether the wrongful death act and §93.001 abrogate or control the unlawful acts doctrine, and whether summary judgment was proper.
- The Texas Legislature enacted §93.001 (1987/1995) to provide a statutory defense for felons, which the court concludes prevails over the common-law doctrine where applicable.
- The court reverses and remands, finding §93.001 applicable and the unlawful acts doctrine inapplicable to Arredondo's claims because Dugger did not prove the statutory elements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the wrongful death act abrogate the unlawful acts doctrine? | Arredondo argues §71.002 bars only the decedent's claims, not the doctrine. | Dugger argues the wrongful death act supersedes the unlawful acts doctrine. | Wrongful death act does not abrogate the unlawful acts doctrine. |
| Does §93.001 abrogate the unlawful acts doctrine in this case? | Arredondo contends §93.001 supersedes the common-law doctrine. | Dugger contends §93.001 does not apply or preempt the doctrine here. | Section 93.001 preempts the unlawful acts doctrine where applicable. |
| Can §93.001's elements be satisfied on Arredondo's claims here? | Arredondo asserts Dugger failed to prove the statutory elements; thus §93.001 applies in her favor. | Dugger contends the statutory defense was not proven. | Dugger did not prove the §93.001 elements; summary judgment is improper. |
| Is §93.001(c) controlling over any other law in this action? | Arredondo relies on §93.001 as controlling and superseding other laws. | Dugger argues coexistence is possible and that the doctrine may remain in some contexts. | §93.001 prevails over other laws in actions to which it applies. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gulf, C. & S.F. Ry. Co. v. Johnson, 71 Tex. 619 (Tex. 1888) (unlawful acts doctrine proximate-cause framework)
- Sharpe v. Turley, 191 S.W.3d 362 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2006) (common-law unlawful acts doctrine; intertwining wrongful conduct)
- Ward v. Emmett, 37 S.W.3d 500 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2001) (statutory defense similar to unlawful acts doctrine; preemption context)
- Denson v. Dallas Cnty. Credit Union, 262 S.W.3d 846 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2008) (unlawful acts doctrine applied where conduct intertwined with illegal activity)
- Hunter v. Fort Worth Cap. Corp., 620 S.W.2d 547 (Tex. 1981) (statutory revision and preemption principles in statutory modification of common law)
- Moragne v. States Marine Lines, Inc., 398 U.S. 375 (U.S. 1970) (historical context on wrongful death origins (federal) influencing state law)