Cooper v. Harris
329 S.W.3d 898
| Tex. App. | 2010Background
- Harris, a BASF employee, retained Cooper to pursue employment-discrimination claims.
- Cooper filed a Texas Labor Code claim with the EEOC on March 6, 2001; it was untimely for state claims, and the EEOC dismissed July 30, 2001.
- Harris received a right-to-sue notice from the EEOC but Cooper filed suit more than 90 days after that notice.
- Cooper withdrew from the federal case after removal; Harris was represented by Bittick in the federal proceedings.
- BASF obtained summary judgment; Fifth Circuit affirmed; Harris then sued Cooper in Texas state court for negligence and breach of contract.
- Jury awarded Harris over $2.1 million for negligence and $7,250 for breach; trial court entered a total judgment exceeding $2.9 million.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of causation evidence for negligence | Harris: causation shown by expert testimony linking failure to file on time to damages. | Cooper: causation not proven; expert needed to connect negligence to outcome in underlying case. | No legally sufficient causation; expert testimony required; Harris failed to prove outcome would be more favorable. |
| Is expert testimony required to prove causation in malpractice | Harris contends jury could understand deadlines; expert unnecessary. | Cooper: causal link in underlying litigation demands expert causation proof. | Expert testimony required; absence of competent expert evidence defeats causation finding. |
| Fracturing: may breach-of-contract claim stand separate from negligence | Harris perceived breach as separate remedy from negligence. | Fracturing not allowed; negligence claim should not be circumvented by contract claim. | Improper fracturing; Harris cannot recover separately for breach of contract. |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (standard for legal-sufficiency review; burdens liberally construed in light of evidence)
- Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, L.L.P. v. Nat'l Dev. & Res. Corp., 299 S.W.3d 106 (Tex. 2009) (causation in litigation malpractice requires proof of damages if underlying case were properly litigated)
- Alexander v. Turtur & Assocs., 146 S.W.3d 113 (Tex. 2004) (causation in attorney-negligence cases may require expert testimony)
- Cosgrove v. Grimes, 774 S.W.2d 662 (Tex. 1989) (causation proof in malpractice cases requires showing underlying outcome would differ)
- Keck, Mahin & Cate v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, 20 S.W.3d 692 (Tex. 2000) (causation proof standards in underlying litigation for malpractice)
- MND Drilling Corp. v. Lloyd, 866 S.W.2d 29 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1987) (causation for underlying case outcomes in malpractice actions)
- Greathouse v. McConnell, 982 S.W.2d 165 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1998) (necessary causation showing for malpractice claims)
- F.W. Indus., Inc. v. McKeehan, 198 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2005) (expert causation needed to connect attorney-negligence to damages)