Excel Corp. v. Apodaca

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that plaintiff’s doctors’ testimony that plaintiff’s injury was caused by his work was insufficient to establish legal causation because the evidence “fail[ed] to establish that [plaintiff] would not have been injured but for any negligent conduct by [the defendant].”
• holding that plaintiff failed to present legally sufficient evidence to support jury finding that defendant’s negligence was cause-in-fact of his injuries because he failed to establish that “had [defendant] employed . . . other practices, [plaintiff] would not have been injured”
• holding cause in fact may not be supported by conjecture, guess or speculation, but can be based on either direct or circumstantial evidence
• holding evidence legally insufficient to prove that injury was caused by unsafe work practices where it failed to show that the injury would not have occurred if different practices had been followed
• “Because Excel is a nonsubscriber under the Workers’ Compensation Act, Apodaca sued Excel alleging common-law claims of negligence and gross negligence in failing to provide a safe workplace.”
• “The test for cause in fact, or ‘but for cause,’ is whether the act or omission was a substantial factor in causing the injury ‘without which the harm would not have occurred.’” (quoting Boys Clubs, 907 S.W.2d. at 477)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).