- Click here fore the article.
On its face, it is a straightforward case. A west Texas farmer's cattle got out of their pasture, roamed onto a rural road and caused a car crash. A man injured in the crash sued the farmer for negligence.
Thanks to some outlandish logic and an attempt to limit the farmer's liability, attorney Philip Russ has turned the case into somewhat of a referendum on the limits of the 2003 tort reform law, which heavily regulated medical malpractice lawsuits and capped damages for pain and suffering.
Russ is seeking to get the negligence suit against his client dismissed, arguing that since the farmer is a retired doctor and the cows were under his care, it should have been filed as a medical malpractice suit. Because it was not, he argues, his client should not be liable for the injured man's hospital bills.
Besides acting in the best interests of his client, Russ, an Amarillo attorney who more often represents plaintiffs, is hoping his ploy also will illustrate something he says is even more ridiculous: the legal system's current interpretation of the state's landmark tort reform law.
Increasingly, he argues, defense attorneys are resorting to twisted logic to have cases classified as medical malpractice suits as a way of limiting the amount of damages for which their clients would be liable.
