For more than half a century, Texas courts have held that a plaintiff can recover damages for annoyance and personal discomfort caused by a private nuisance. As recently as 2004, in Schneider National Carriers, Inc. v. Bates, the Texas Supreme Court confirmed the right of a plaintiff to recover “nuisance damages” for “symptoms typical of discomfort rather than disease.”
These nuisance cases expressly distinguish between a recovery for “discomfort and loss of enjoyment” as contrasted to damages for personal injuries or disease. The distinction is important, because the general rule in Texas has long been that expert testimony is necessary to establish causation as to medical conditions outside of the common knowledge and experience of jurors. Further, in Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals v. Havner, the Texas Supreme Court held in 1997 that relevant and reliable expert testimony is required to establish causation of medical conditions or diseases from exposure to a toxic chemical or substance.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
