Grocers Supply, Inc. and Jose Narciso Sanchez v. Jose Luis Cabello, Angel Cabello, and Ramiro Cabello
390 S.W.3d 707
Tex. App.2012Background
- Collision occurred on an interstate on June 15, 2008; Grocers’ tractor-trailer collided with Cabellos’ pickup trucks after the Cabellos were changing a tire,”
- Angels pickup pulled to shoulder due to a flat tire; brothers Jose and Ramiro assisted; a tire change was underway when the crash occurred
- Jury apportioned 85% liability to Sanchez and 15% to Jose; damages awarded included lost wages and earning capacity for Angel and Ramiro, and lost wages for Jose
- Judgment entered based on jury findings; Grocers appealed on multiple grounds including preemption, future medical damages, property damages, and litigation costs
- Cabellos cross-appealed for sanctions and a request to reform the judgment for a truck-value error; court affirmed the judgment
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| IRCA preemption of lost-wage damages | Cabellos argue IRCA does not preempt Texas tort damages | Grocers contend IRCA preempts such damages for undocumented claimants | IRCA does not preempt Texas tort damages for lost wages in this context |
| Sufficiency of evidence for Angel’s future medical expenses | Cabellos claim evidence supports future medical damages via Angel’s counseling implications | Grocers argue insufficient medical-evidence support | Issue waived; no preserved challenge to future medical damages |
| Procedural propriety of separate trial on property damage | Cabellos argue proper under Rule 174 to address property damages separately | Grocers contend it deprived them of jury trial rights under Rule 216 | Trial court did not abuse discretion; no preserved objection to jury-trial deprivation; issue overruled |
| Litigation costs under Rule 167 and aggregate settlement | Cabellos claim settlement-offer comparison should be aggregate for all Cabellos | Grocers contend Jose’s damages alone were significantly less favorable than offer | Final judgment not significantly less favorable than aggregate offer; no reversal on costs |
Key Cases Cited
- Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB, 535 U.S. 137 (Supreme Court 2002) (IRCA remedies and NLRB remedial discretion—not controlling here)
- Arizona v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2492 (Supreme Court 2012) (IRCA preemption and criminal penalties against aliens; field of immigration vs. state tort law)
- Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470 (Supreme Court 1996) (Congressional intent governs preemption inquiry; preemption presumptions apply)
- Whiting v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 1968 (Supreme Court 2011) (caution against broad implied preemption; focus on congressional intent)
- DeCanas v. Bica, 424 U.S. 351 (Supreme Court 1976) (recognizes immigration status does not automatically regulate immigration)
- Balbuena v. IDR Realty LLC, 6 N.Y.3d 338 (N.Y. 2006) (IRCA focus on employer sanctions; state tort claims not preempted)
- Madeira v. Affordable Hous. Found., Inc., 469 F.3d 219 (2d Cir. 2006) (IRCA structure; employer focus; civil remedies not preempted)
- Vargas v. Kiewit La. Co., 2012 WL 2952171 (S.D. Tex. 2012) (IRCA preemption considerations in tort context)