01-24-00078-CV
Tex. App.Jul 15, 2025Background
- Lawsuit stems from a 2020 early-morning single-vehicle bus crash in Houston, injuring Eric Profaca and Kristaan Dale, crew members for DJ Nghtmre’s tour; the bus driver, Cynthia Lopez, allegedly displayed illness before the incident and died two days after the crash.
- Plaintiffs sued Breeze (bus owner/employer), TMARE (tour company), and Lyes (tour manager) alleging negligence, gross negligence, negligence per se, and direct liability theories (e.g., negligent supervision and entrustment).
- Critical evidence about the driver’s pre-crash illness, relevant federal safety regulations, and the Breeze-TMARE lease agreement was excluded by the trial court.
- The court granted directed verdict for TMARE and Lyes (dismissing them), and partially for Breeze (limiting trial to the issue of Lopez’s simple negligence).
- Jury found Breeze liable for Lopez’s negligence, awarding total damages of nearly $1.9 million to Profaca and Dale (well below plaintiffs' requests). Post-verdict motions were unsuccessful; plaintiffs appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exclusion of illness, regulation, and contract evidence | Trial court erred by excluding key evidence about driver illness, federal regulation on impaired driving, and TMARE-Breeze contract, harming their case and alternative theories (gross negligence, direct liability) | Exclusion was proper, cumulative, or harmless; plaintiffs prevailed on negligent liability; additional parties/theories don’t affect damages | Affirmed—error, if any, was harmless as plaintiffs prevailed on liability and excluded evidence didn't affect damages |
| Directed verdicts for TMARE and Lyes | Directed verdicts precluded recovery against all liable parties and on all theories | No duty owed by TMARE/Lyes to plaintiffs; contract did not create third-party beneficiary or tort duty | Affirmed—no reversible error; contract did not impose duty on TMARE/Lyes to plaintiffs |
| Exclusion of medical causation testimony | Excluding treating doctors' opinions on crash causation harmed ability to prove damages | Any error was harmless since causation testimony was cumulative and included from other sources | Affirmed—no harm where testimony was otherwise admitted or cumulative |
| Jury charge on physical impairment | Jury instruction was erroneously heightened by unnecessary repetition of “substantial,” increasing plaintiffs’ burden | Charge tracked longstanding Texas law requiring loss be “substantial,” avoiding double recovery | Affirmed—no error in requiring “substantial” loss in charge |
Key Cases Cited
- Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Malone, 972 S.W.2d 35 (Tex. 1998) (standard for reversal for excluded evidence is probable harm)
- Fleming v. Wilson, 610 S.W.3d 18 (Tex. 2020) (appellate review standard for exclusion of evidence)
- Transp. Ins. Co. v. Moriel, 879 S.W.2d 10 (Tex. 1994) (relevance and gross negligence sufficiency standards)
- Medina v. Zuniga, 593 S.W.3d 238 (Tex. 2019) (gross negligence: objective and subjective components)
- Diamond Shamrock Refin. Co. v. Hall, 168 S.W.3d 164 (Tex. 2005) (gross negligence: actual, subjective awareness required)
- Lee Lewis Constr., Inc. v. Harrison, 70 S.W.3d 778 (Tex. 2001) (clear and convincing evidence standard for gross negligence)
- Golden Eagle Archery, Inc. v. Jackson, 116 S.W.3d 757 (Tex. 2003) (avoiding double recovery in damages)
- Lawson-Avila Constr., Inc. v. Stoutamire, 791 S.W.2d 584 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1990) (standard for physical impairment damages)