News
 
Varghese Summersett

A Shift from Departures to Variances Under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)

On December 19, 2024, the United States Sentencing Commission (the “Commission”) proposed a transformative amendment to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“Guidelines”), marking what could be the most significant overhaul since the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in United States v. Booker , 543 U.S. 220 (2005).

The proposal aims to simplify the current three-step sentencing process outlined in Guidelines §1B1.1 by eliminating the second step—consideration of formal departures—and effectively phasing out most departure provisions throughout the Guidelines. Instead, sentencing courts would rely more heavily on variances under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) to tailor sentences.

This amendment is central to the proposed simplification of federal sentencing guidelines, which seeks to streamline judicial discretion while maintaining fairness in sentencing.

This article provides a detailed analysis of the proposed simplification of Federal Sentencing Guidelines, exploring the concepts of departures and variances, their statutory foundations, the § 3553(a) sentencing factors, and the potential implications for federal sentencing law.

The Current Three-Step Process Under §1B1.1

The Guidelines, established under the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, provide a structured framework for federal sentencing. Post-Booker, which rendered the Guidelines advisory rather than mandatory, §1B1.1 outlines a three-step process for determining a sentence:

Step One: Calculate the Guideline Range (§1B1.1(a))

The court determines the applicable offense level (Chapters Two and Three), criminal history category (Chapter Four), and sentencing options (Chapter Five, Parts B-G), yielding a guideline range. This range serves as the “starting point and initial benchmark” (Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 49 (2007)).

Step Two: Consider Departures (§1B1.1(b))

The court evaluates whether grounds for departure—specific adjustments outside the guideline range—exist, as provided in policy statements (Chapter Five, Parts H and K) and commentary throughout the Guidelines. Departures address specific offender characteristics or offense circumstances not fully accounted for in the range calculation. The proposed simplification of federal sentencing guidelines seeks to eliminate most departure provisions, making this step largely obsolete.

Step Three: Apply 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) Factors (§1B1.1(c))

The court considers the statutory sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) to impose a sentence “sufficient, but not greater than necessary,” either within or outside the guideline range. This step allows for variances—deviations from the range based on broader judicial discretion rather than specific departure provisions. Under the proposed simplification of federal sentencing guidelines, variances will become the primary method for courts to adjust sentences.

This tripartite structure reflects a compromise between the Guidelines’ original mandatory framework and the post-Booker advisory regime. However, as judicial practice has evolved, the utility of Step Two has waned, prompting the Commission’s proposed overhaul.

What are Departures?

Definition: A departure is a sentence outside the calculated guideline range authorized by specific provisions or policy statements within the Guidelines Manual. Departures are grounded in the Commission’s determination that certain aggravating or mitigating circumstances were not adequately considered in formulating the guideline range (see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(b), pre-Booker). Examples include departures for substantial assistance to authorities (§5K1.1), criminal history inadequacies (§4A1.3), or specific offender characteristics (§5H series, e.g., age or family ties, where relevant).

Statutory Basis: The Sentencing Reform Act (28 U.S.C. § 994) directs the Commission to establish guidelines and policy statements, categorizing offenses and defendants while considering factors like offense conduct (§ 994(c)) and offender characteristics (§ 994(d)). However, Congress imposed limits: certain characteristics (e.g., race, sex, socioeconomic status) are prohibited (§ 994(d), §5H1.10), while others (e.g., employment, family ties) are deemed “generally inappropriate” for imprisonment terms (§ 994(e), §5H1.2, §5H1.6). Departures thus operate within these statutory constraints, providing a structured mechanism for deviation pre-Booker.

Pre-Booker, departures were the sole means to impose a sentence outside the guideline range, requiring a finding of an “aggravating or mitigating circumstance” not adequately considered by the Commission (18 U.S.C. § 3553(b)). Post-Booker, their mandatory nature evaporated, but they remain part of the Guidelines’ advisory framework. The proposed amendment seeks to eliminate most departures (except for substantial assistance and early disposition programs), reflecting their declining use.

Examples of Departures – Upward and Downward

Departures are not inherently directional—whether upward or downward depends on the provision and the case-specific facts. Upward departures address aggravating factors that justify a harsher sentence, while downward departures mitigate punishment based on extenuating circumstances. Courts must articulate their reasoning, often tying the departure to a Guidelines provision, and, under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(h), provide “reasonable notice” if contemplating a departure on grounds not identified in the presentence report (PSR) or parties’ submissions.

Common Upward Departures

Upward departures increase the sentence above the guideline range, typically justified by offense severity, offender risk, or procedural history not fully captured in the range calculation. Below are common examples:

Criminal History Inadequacies (§4A1.3)
Application: If a defendant’s criminal history category (I-VI) “substantially under-represents the seriousness of the defendant’s criminal history or the likelihood that the defendant will commit other crimes,” an upward departure is authorized. This applies when prior convictions were excluded (e.g., due to age or consolidation) or when uncharged conduct suggests greater dangerousness.

Example: A defendant with a Category III history but a pattern of escalating violent behavior (e.g., uncharged assaults) might warrant an upward departure to Category IV or higher, increasing the range from, say, 51-63 months to 63-78 months.

Extreme Conduct (§5K2.8)
Application: Courts may depart upward if the defendant’s conduct was “unusually heinous, cruel, brutal, or degrading to the victim,” beyond what the offense guideline contemplates.

Example: In a manslaughter case (base range 41-51 months), evidence of prolonged torture before death could justify an upward departure to 70-87 months.

Dismissed or Uncharged Conduct (§5K2.21)
Application: If prosecutors dismissed counts or did not charge relevant conduct that would have increased the offense level, an upward departure may restore proportionality.

Example: A drug trafficking defendant (range 57-71 months) whose plea excluded a related firearm offense might face an upward departure to reflect the uncharged enhancement (e.g., 70-87 months).

Death (§5K2.1)
Application: If death resulted from the offense and the guideline range does not fully account for it, an upward departure is warranted.

Example: In a reckless driving case (range 12-18 months), causing a fatality not reflected in the base offense level could lead to a departure to 24-30 months.

Upward departures are less common post-Booker due to variance flexibility, but they remain relevant in cases where the Guidelines explicitly signal aggravation (e.g., §5K2 series).

Common Downward Departures

Downward departures reduce the sentence below the guideline range, often reflecting mitigation tied to offender characteristics, cooperation, or offense context. Below are key examples:

Substantial Assistance to Authorities (§5K1.1)
Application: Upon government motion, courts may depart downward if the defendant provided significant cooperation in investigating or prosecuting others. Factors include the assistance’s nature, timeliness, and impact.

Example: A drug conspiracy defendant facing a recommended range of 97-121 months who testifies against co-conspirators might receive a §5K1.1 departure to 60-75 months, depending on assistance value.

Criminal History Over-Representation (§4A1.3)
Application: If the criminal history category “substantially over-represents the seriousness of the defendant’s criminal history or likelihood of recidivism,” a downward departure is permissible.

Example: A Category IV defendant facing a recommended range of 57-71 months whose prior convictions were minor, non-violent offenses might be adjusted to Category II (37-46 months).

Specific Offender Characteristics (§5H Series)
Application: Certain personal traits may justify departure if relevant under policy statements, though Congress limits their use (§ 994(e)). Examples include:
Age (§5H1.1): Advanced age or youth may mitigate punishment if tied to reduced culpability or recidivism risk.
Family Ties and Responsibilities (§5H1.6): Extraordinary family obligations (e.g., sole caregiver to dependents) may warrant leniency.
Mental and Emotional Conditions (§5H1.3): Significant mental health issues not amounting to a defense may reduce blameworthiness.

Example: An elderly fraud defendant facing a recommended range of 24-30 months with severe health decline might receive a departure to 12-18 months under §5H1.1.

Diminished Capacity (§5K2.13)
Application: A downward departure is authorized if a defendant’s reduced mental capacity (not caused by voluntary intoxication) contributed to the offense and does not pose a public safety risk.

Example: A theft defendant facing a recommended range of 15-21 months with documented cognitive impairment might see a departure to 6-12 months.

Voluntary Disclosure of Offense (§5K2.16)
Application: If a defendant voluntarily discloses an offense prior to discovery and accepts responsibility, a downward departure may apply.

Example: A tax evasion defendant facing a recommended range of 18-24 months who self-reports before an investigation could receive a departure to 10-16 months.

Variances: Definition and Post-Booker Evolution

Definition: A variance is a sentence outside the guideline range based on the court’s discretionary application of the § 3553(a) factors, independent of specific departure provisions. Unlike departures, variances do not require a Guidelines-sanctioned basis; they stem from judicial authority under Booker and its progeny (e.g., Irizarry v. United States, 553 U.S. 708 (2008)).

Post-Booker Context: In Booker, the Supreme Court excised 18 U.S.C. § 3553(b)(1), which made the Guidelines mandatory, and upheld § 3553(a) as the overarching framework for sentencing. This shifted the Guidelines to an advisory role, with courts required to “consider” the guideline range alongside § 3553(a) factors (Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 347-48 (2007)). Variances became the primary vehicle for deviations, as they allow broader consideration of offender and offense characteristics without the formalism of departure provisions. For example, a variance might reflect a defendant’s rehabilitation efforts or offense context, even if not listed as a departure ground.

Procedural Distinction: Departures trigger a notice requirement under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(h) when contemplated on grounds not identified in the presentence report (PSR) or parties’ submissions. Variances, however, require no such notice. Irizarry at 714-16 (2008).

Common Reasons for Variances in Federal Sentencing

Common Reasons for Variances in Federal Sentencing: Upward and Downward Examples

In the post-Booker era, where the Federal Sentencing Guidelines (“Guidelines”) are advisory, variances have become the primary mechanism for federal courts to impose sentences outside the calculated guideline range.

Unlike departures, which rely on specific Guidelines provisions or policy statements, variances are grounded in the broader discretionary authority granted to sentencing courts under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). This statute requires courts to impose a sentence “sufficient, but not greater than necessary” to achieve the purposes of sentencing, considering factors such as the nature of the offense, the defendant’s characteristics, and the need for deterrence, public protection, and rehabilitation.

Variances can move upward or downward, reflecting aggravating or mitigating circumstances, respectively, and their application has largely supplanted departures in practice due to their flexibility and lack of procedural formalism (e.g., no notice requirement under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(h). Common reasons for variances overlap with departure grounds but extend beyond them, capturing a wider array of offense and offender-specific considerations.

Common Reasons for Upward Variances

Upward variances increase the sentence above the guideline range, typically reflecting § 3553(a) factors like the seriousness of the offense (§ 3553(a)(2)(A)), the need to deter (§ 3553(a)(2)(B)), or public protection (§ 3553(a)(2)(C)). Below are prevalent reasons and examples:

Exceptional Offense Severity or Harm
Reason: The offense’s nature and circumstances (§ 3553(a)(1)) exceed what the guideline range contemplates, justifying a harsher penalty to reflect its gravity or impact.

Example: In a fraud case with a recommended guideline range of 33-41 months, a defendant who defrauded elderly victims of their life savings, causing severe emotional and financial devastation, might receive an upward variance to 60 months. The court could cite the need for just punishment and deterrence, noting the Guidelines’ fraud loss table (§2B1.1) underestimates the harm.

History of Recidivism or Dangerousness
Reason: The defendant’s history and characteristics (§ 3553(a)(1)) or risk of future crimes (§ 3553(a)(2)(C)) suggest the guideline range inadequately protects the public.

Example: A defendant convicted of illegal firearm possession with a recommended guideline range of 24-30 months, with a history of uncharged violent acts (e.g., domestic assaults) might face an upward variance to 48 months. The court could emphasize public safety, even if §4A1.3 (criminal history departure) wasn’t formally invoked.

Need for Specific Deterrence
Reason: The defendant’s likelihood of reoffending (§ 3553(a)(2)(B)) requires a stronger penalty to deter future conduct beyond the guideline range’s general deterrence.

Example: In a drug trafficking case with an example recommended guideline range of 57-71 months, a defendant who continued dealing post-arrest might receive a variance to 90 months. The court could highlight specific deterrence, noting prior leniency failed to alter behavior.

Uncharged or Dismissed Conduct
Reason: Conduct not reflected in the guideline calculation (§ 3553(a)(1))—e.g., dismissed counts—warrants a higher sentence for proportionality.

Example: A robbery defendant (hypothetical range of 41-51 months) whose plea excluded a related assault might see a variance to 70 months, with the court citing the offense’s true scope under § 3553(a)(2)(A).

Upward variances are less frequent than downward ones but arise when courts find the guideline range fails to capture the offense’s severity or the defendant’s risk profile.

Common Reasons for Downward Variances

Downward variances reduce the sentence below the guideline range, often driven by mitigating factors under § 3553(a)(1) (offense nature and defendant characteristics) or § 3553(a)(2)(D) (rehabilitation needs). Below are common reasons and examples:

Extraordinary Rehabilitation or Remorse
Reason: Post-offense efforts at rehabilitation or genuine remorse (§ 3553(a)(1), (2)(D)) suggest a lower sentence aligns with sentencing goals.

Example: A drug possession defendant (hypothetical range of range 21-27 months) who completed a rehab program, secured employment, and expressed sincere contrition might receive a variance to 12 months. The court could note rehabilitation reduces recidivism risk.

Minimal Role or Culpability
Reason: The defendant’s limited involvement in the offense (§ 3553(a)(1)) makes the guideline range disproportionately harsh.

Example: In a conspiracy case (hypothetical range of range 70-87 months), a peripheral participant coerced into minor acts (e.g., delivering a package) might get a variance to 36 months, with the court citing fairness under § 3553(a)(2)(A).

Family Circumstances or Dependents
Reason: Exceptional family responsibilities (§ 3553(a)(1))—beyond what §5H1.6 (departure) covers—justify leniency to minimize collateral harm.

Example: A single parent convicted of theft (hypothetical range of range 15-21 months) caring for a disabled child might receive a variance to probation or 6 months, with the court emphasizing the child’s welfare under § 3553(a)(1).

Age or Health Conditions
Reason: Advanced age, youth, or severe health issues (§ 3553(a)(1)) reduce culpability, recidivism risk, or the need for lengthy incarceration.

Example: An elderly fraud defendant (hypothetical range of range 30-37 months) with terminal illness might see a variance to home confinement or 12 months, citing diminished dangerousness and medical needs (§ 3553(a)(2)(C), (D)).

Disparity with Co-Defendants or Similarly Situated Offenders
Reason: Avoiding unwarranted sentencing disparities (§ 3553(a)(6)) among co-defendants or peers justifies a lower sentence.

Example: In a multi-defendant drug case where co-conspirators received 40-50 months (hypothetical range for this defendant is 70-87 months), a variance to 48 months might ensure consistency, reflecting relative culpability.

Collateral Consequences of Conviction
Reason: Significant non-penal consequences (e.g., deportation, job loss) (§ 3553(a)(2)(A)) render the guideline range excessive.

Example: A non-citizen tax fraud defendant (hypothetical range of 18-24 months) facing deportation might receive a variance to 6 months, with the court noting the additional punishment of exile.

Trends and Frequency

Post-Booker, variances outpace departures significantly. U.S. Sentencing Commission data (Fiscal Year 2023) show non-government-sponsored departures (beyond §5K1.1 and early disposition) occurred in only 4.3% of cases, while variances are more common, especially downward. For instance, courts often cite rehabilitation or family ties for downward variances, reflecting § 3553(a)’s individualized focus. Upward variances, though less frequent, arise in high-profile or egregious cases (e.g., white-collar crimes with massive losses), emphasizing deterrence and punishment.

Preservation of §5K1.1 in the Amendment

While the proposed amendment eliminates most departure provisions to streamline sentencing under § 3553(a) variances, it explicitly preserves §5K1.1, the policy statement allowing downward departures for substantial assistance to authorities. Unlike the §5H series (e.g., age, family ties) and most §5K provisions (e.g., §5K2.8 for extreme conduct), which are deleted as redundant with § 3553(a) discretion, §5K1.1 remains in Chapter Five, Part K. This retention ensures courts can still reduce sentences—such as dropping a drug conspiracy range from 97-121 months to 60-75 months—when the government files a motion certifying significant cooperation, like testifying against co-conspirators.

Why §5K1.1 Stays: The Commission keeps §5K1.1 due to its unique reliance on a government motion, a feature distinguishing it from other departures courts can initiate independently. This prosecutorial gatekeeping is vital for encouraging defendants to provide critical information in investigations, such as dismantling crime networks, a role variances alone can’t fully replicate without losing predictability. Alongside early disposition programs (relocated to Chapter Three, Part F), §5K1.1’s preservation reflects its practical necessity and frequent use—U.S. Sentencing Commission data shows it drives many below-range sentences, especially in drug cases.

Structural and Practical Implications: By retaining §5K1.1 in its original form, the amendment maintains a dual pathway for cooperation-based leniency: government-triggered §5K1.1 departures and court-driven § 3553(a) variances. This could create strategic differences—prosecutors may favor §5K1.1 for control, while defendants seek variances if no motion is filed. The provision’s commentary, detailing factors like assistance significance and risk, stays intact, ensuring procedural clarity amid the shift to a broader discretionary framework.

Preservation of Early Disposition Programs in the Amendment

In addition to preserving §5K1.1, the proposed amendment retains early disposition programs as an exception to the widespread elimination of departure provisions. These programs, originally outlined in §5K3.1, allow courts to impose sentences below the guideline range for defendants who resolve their cases quickly, typically through expedited pleas, under programs authorized by the Attorney General and U.S. Attorneys. Unlike most departures being phased out in favor of § 3553(a) variances, early disposition programs are relocated from Chapter Five, Part K to a new Chapter Three, Part F, maintaining their role in encouraging efficiency in federal sentencing.

Why Early Disposition Programs Are Kept: The Commission preserves these programs because they serve a systemic purpose distinct from other departures: reducing court backlogs and prosecutorial workloads. For instance, a defendant in a drug case (range 41-51 months) who pleads guilty early under an authorized program might receive a departure to 33-41 months, freeing resources for more complex cases. This efficiency-driven mechanism, tied to Department of Justice approval, doesn’t overlap neatly with § 3553(a) factors, justifying its retention over provisions like §5H1.3 (mental conditions) that courts can address through variances.

Structural Shift and Implications: Moving early disposition programs to Chapter Three, Part F reflects a reclassification from a departure to an adjustment applied during guideline calculation, though it retains its below-range effect. This shift integrates it earlier in the sentencing process—before § 3553(a) considerations—while keeping its government-initiated nature intact. It ensures continuity for districts using these programs (e.g., border regions with high caseloads), complementing §5K1.1 as a preserved exception and reinforcing the amendment’s balance between simplification and practical sentencing tools.

The 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) Sentencing Factors

The proposed amendment elevates § 3553(a) as the primary mechanism for deviations, consolidating considerations previously handled by departures. Section 3553(a) mandates that courts impose a sentence “sufficient, but not greater than necessary” to achieve sentencing purposes, considering:

Nature and Circumstances of the Offense and Defendant’s History and Characteristics
Encompasses offense details and the defendant’s background (e.g., criminal history, personal traits), offering a broad lens for individualization.

Purposes of Sentencing
(A) Reflect seriousness, promote respect for law, and provide just punishment.
(B) Deter criminal conduct.
(C) Protect the public from further crimes.
(D) Provide rehabilitation (e.g., education, medical care).

Kinds of Sentences Available
Options include imprisonment, probation, fines, or supervised release.

Guideline Range and Commission Policy Statements
Courts must consider the advisory guideline range and pertinent policy statements (e.g., §5K1.1 for substantial assistance).

Avoiding Unwarranted Disparities
Ensures consistency among similarly situated defendants.

Restitution to Victims
Addresses victim compensation where applicable.

These factors grant courts wide discretion, overlapping with many departure grounds (e.g., family ties, mental condition) but extending beyond the Guidelines’ structured limits. The proposal’s reliance on § 3553(a) aligns with this expansive statutory mandate.

Key Changes

Elimination of Departures: Most departure provisions (e.g., §5H series, §5K except §5K1.1 and early disposition programs) are deleted. Commentary-based departures throughout the Guidelines are excised, except for substantial assistance (§5K1.1), which remains, and early disposition programs, relocated to Chapter Three, Part F.

Structural Adjustments: Chapter Five, Part H (Specific Offender Characteristics) and most of Part K (Departures) are removed. Chapter Five is retitled to focus on range calculation, with historical commentary moved to an appendix.

Clarification of Authority: Revised §1A1.1 (formerly §1A3.1) delineates the Commission’s statutory limits (28 U.S.C. § 994) versus courts’ broader § 3553(a) discretion, emphasizing that Guidelines constraints do not bind sentencing courts.

Commentary Updates: Background commentary underscores the two-step process and courts’ duty to consider § 3553(a)’s “widest possible breadth of information.”

Impact on the Law

Impact on the Law

Streamlining Sentencing: By collapsing Steps Two and Three into a single § 3553(a) analysis, the amendment eliminates redundancy. Courts no longer assess departures only to revisit similar factors under § 3553(a), aligning the Guidelines with post-Booker practice where variances predominate (e.g., only 4.3% of 2023 cases involved non-substantial-assistance departures per Commission data).

Judicial Discretion: The shift enhances flexibility, as variances lack the Guidelines’ prescriptive limits, though it risks inconsistency without departure guardrails.

Notice Concerns: Rule 32(h)’s departure notice requirement becomes obsolete, but variances’ lack of notice (Irizarry) may challenge parties’ preparation. Arguably, existing PSR and hearing protections suffice, with continuances as a remedy for surprise.

Hearing on Simplifying Sentencing Guidelines

The Commission heard testimony on its proposal to simplify the guidelines by removing the three-step sentencing process in favor of a more straightforward two-step approach. Here’s where each stakeholder group stands on the proposed simplification:

Federal Defenders expressed strong support for removing departures and simplifying to a two-step process. They applauded the improved Chapter One that correctly describes the post-Booker sentencing landscape, while requesting that underlying concepts from certain departure provisions (§§2L1.2, 4A1.3, 5C1.1, and 5G1.3) be preserved without labeling them as departures. They also recommended removing mandatory language throughout the Guidelines Manual and suggested adding explanatory language to the Chapter Five introduction.

The Department of Justice indicated general support for the Commission’s simplification efforts, viewing the proposal as appropriately reflecting the reality of post-Booker sentencing. However, they expressed concerns about maintaining certain guidance where Congress has specifically directed the Commission through statutory directives.

The Practitioners Advisory Group strongly supports the proposed amendment, believing it appropriately reflects current sentencing practices where judges typically use variances instead of departures. They view the amendment as ratifying current practice without changing sentencing outcomes and recommended revising the Statement of Reasons form to continue capturing data on grounds for variances.

Probation Officers Advisory Group overwhelmingly supports simplifying the three-step process, noting that most courts already rely on variances rather than departures. They recommended retaining some version of §5K2.23 (Discharged Terms of Imprisonment), though a minority preferred the 2024 proposal that maintained departure provisions as “additional considerations.”

The Tribal Issues Advisory Group supports the simplification proposal, believing it will conform the Manual to existing practices in many courts. They expressed concern about tribal court convictions and recommended preserving guidance on how to consider them, suggesting that the Statement of Reasons form should include clear explanations for variances from guidelines.

Finally, the Judicial Conference Committee on Criminal Law supports the Commission’s proposal, viewing it as addressing concerns raised about the previous year’s proposal and noting it appropriately retains revised provisions for substantial assistance and early disposition programs.

The Commission is now considering this testimony as it finalizes the amendment for a potential vote later this year. If approved, the simplification would take effect on November 1, 2025, absent congressional action.

A Paradigm Shift in Federal Sentencing

The proposed simplification of federal sentencing guidelines represents a paradigm shift in federal sentencing. The amendment aligns with two decades of post-Booker evolution. By jettisoning most departures and centering sentencing on § 3553(a) variances, it acknowledges the Guidelines’ advisory role while streamlining a process long criticized for inefficiency and formalism.

For lawyers, this shift demands a pivot from departure-centric advocacy to robust § 3553(a) arguments, leveraging the statute’s breadth to craft individualized sentences. While challenges like notice and consistency persist, the amendment promises a sentencing framework that is simpler, more flexible, and truer to the judiciary’s post-Booker reality. The legal community awaits the Commission’s final decision with interest, as this could redefine federal sentencing for years to come.

Varghese Summersett

Civil Mediation in Texas: What You Need to Know

Mediation has become an integral part of the civil litigation process in many jurisdictions, including Texas, where it serves as a preferred method for resolving disputes outside the courtroom. This article explores the nuances of mediation, its legal basis in civil lawsuits, the typical requirements for its use, and what actually occurs during a mediation session.

What is Mediation in Civil Lawsuits?

Mediation is a form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) where a neutral third party, known as a mediator, assists disputing parties in reaching a mutually acceptable agreement. Unlike arbitration or litigation, mediation is non-binding; the mediator does not make a decision but facilitates negotiation between the parties. The goal is to achieve a resolution that is agreeable to all involved, often saving time, reducing costs, and preserving relationships that might be strained further by court battles.

Statutory Basis for Mediation in Texas

Statutory Basis for Civil Mediation in Texas

Civil mediation in Texas is supported by the Texas Alternative Dispute Resolution Act (Texas ADR Statute), which was passed in 1987. This statute, found in the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code , specifically under Chapter 154, encourages the peaceful resolution of disputes through mediation. Section 154.002 of the code articulates the state’s policy to promote the mediation of issues and early settlement of litigation through voluntary procedures.

  • Section 154.021 allows courts to refer disputes to ADR procedures, including mediation.
  • Section 154.073 ensures the confidentiality of communications made during mediation, protecting the integrity of the process by preventing these discussions from being used in any subsequent judicial proceedings unless they fall under specific exceptions.

Is Mediation Generally Required by Courts?

While not universally mandated for every civil case, mediation is often required by Texas courts before parties can proceed to trial:

  • Court-Ordered Mediation: Under Section 154.021(a), a court may, on its own initiative or upon a motion by a party, refer a case to mediation. Most courts in Texas have adopted local rules or standing orders that require mediation before trial, particularly in areas like family law , personal injury, and commercial disputes.
  • Objections and Sanctions: If a party objects to mediation, they must do so within 10 days of notification (Section 154.022). Failure to object or to participate can lead to sanctions, as upheld in cases like Texas Dept. of Transportation v. Pirtle, where non-participation without objection resulted in sanctions.

What Happens at Mediation

What Happens at Mediation?

Preparation for Mediation

  • Choosing the Mediator: Parties or their attorneys select a mediator with experience relevant to the case. Traits like neutrality, experience, and communication style are crucial.
  • Pre-Mediation Briefs: Lawyers often submit mediation statements or briefs to the mediator outlining their case, key issues, and potential settlement terms.
  • Client Preparation: Attorneys prepare their clients for the process, discussing expectations, possible outcomes, and the mediation’s non-adversarial nature.

Mediation Session

  • Opening Joint Session: Here, the mediator introduces the process, and parties might make opening statements if not waived. This session sets the tone, allowing parties to express their positions directly, though it’s often skipped in contentious disputes to maintain peace.
  • Private Caucuses: Most of the mediation occurs in these separate sessions where the mediator meets with each party privately. This allows for confidential discussions, negotiation strategies, and exploration of settlement possibilities without direct confrontation.
  • Negotiation Dynamics: Through shuttle diplomacy or direct negotiations, the mediator helps clarify issues, propose solutions, and bridge gaps between offers and demands.
  • Drafting Agreement: If a settlement is reached, the mediator or attorneys draft a Mediation Settlement Agreement (MSA). This document outlines the terms of the settlement, which then requires formalization post-mediation.

Post-Mediation

  • Enforcement of Agreement: MSAs are enforceable under Texas law as contracts. However, they must comply with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 11 for court enforcement unless they are made in open court.
  • Impasse or Recess: If mediation does not result in an agreement, the mediator might declare an impasse or suggest a recess to allow for further consideration or preparation before reconvening.
  • Mediator’s Proposal: In some instances, the mediator might offer a proposal which both parties must accept or reject within a set time. This is often used when traditional negotiation stalls.

Attributes of Successful Mediation

Attributes of Successful Mediation

Civil mediation in Texas is not just about settling disputes; it’s about doing so in a way that fosters ongoing peace and understanding among all parties involved. Here’s how mediation can be successful:

Commitment

For mediation to work, everyone involved must be committed to the process. This means showing up not just physically but also mentally, ready to engage in problem-solving. It’s like agreeing to play a game where everyone plays to find a win-win situation, rather than aiming to defeat the other side. When all parties are invested, they’re more likely to reach an agreement that everyone can live with.

Information Sharing

Mediation thrives on transparency. Just like building a bridge requires knowing the strength of the materials you’re using, mediation needs clear and complete information about finances, children’s needs, or any other relevant issues. When everyone shares what they know, it’s easier to construct solutions that make sense for all involved. This openness helps in understanding each other’s positions better, reducing surprises and mistrust.

Authority

It’s crucial that the people at the mediation table have the power to make decisions. If you’re negotiating custody but the person who’s going to make the final call isn’t there, you’re just spinning your wheels. Having those with authority to sign off on agreements present speeds up the process and ensures that decisions made are final, preventing the need for revisiting issues later.

Preparation

Coming to mediation unprepared is like showing up to a test without studying; you might not fail, but you won’t perform at your best. Parties and their legal representatives should come equipped with all necessary documents, a clear understanding of their legal rights, and a well-thought-out list of goals and compromises. This preparation allows for more productive discussions, where both sides can navigate towards resolutions with confidence.

Mediator Fit

The mediator acts like a guide through a complex maze. Their background, style, and approach need to fit the specific nature of the dispute. A knowledgeable mediator can manage the process better, helping parties to communicate effectively, manage emotions, and explore creative solutions. The right mediator can make the difference between a mediation that feels like a battle and one that feels like teamwork.

Mediation Can Be a Pathway to Resolution

Civil Mediation in Texas Can Be a Pathway to Resolution

Civil mediation in Texas offers a pathway to resolution that emphasizes cooperation over confrontation. Grounded in Texas law, the process is structured to foster agreement, providing a confidential, less formal, and often more satisfactory resolution than traditional litigation. The effectiveness of mediation largely depends on the preparation, the mediator’s skill, and the willingness of parties to genuinely engage in the process. As courts increasingly mandate mediation, understanding its mechanics, legal foundations, and strategic use becomes vital for legal practitioners and disputants alike.

Varghese Summersett

Understanding Texas Civil Statute of Limitations for Sexual Abuse Claims

What are Statutes of Limitations?

A statute of limitations in civil law represents the maximum time period within which a person must file a lawsuit after an injury or harm occurs. These time limits serve multiple purposes: they ensure claims are brought while evidence is still fresh and available, provide certainty to potential defendants about their legal exposure, and encourage prompt resolution of legal disputes. However, in cases of sexual abuse, particularly involving minors, traditional statute of limitations frameworks have been recognized as inadequate due to the unique nature of these injuries and the often delayed disclosure of abuse.

Texas Law for Sexual Abuse Claims

Current Texas Law for Sexual Abuse Claims

Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code Section 16.0045, as amended by House Bill 3809 in 2019, establishes two distinct limitation periods based on the type of sexual abuse and the victim’s age when the abuse occurred.

Claims Involving Child Victims

For personal injury claims arising from sexual abuse or assault of a child, the current law provides:

  • Victims have until 30 years after their 18th birthday to file a civil lawsuit
  • This means victims can file until age 48
  • The extended period applies to claims involving:
    • Sexual abuse
    • Aggravated sexual abuse
    • Continuous sexual abuse
    • Trafficking
    • Compelling prostitution of a child

Claims Involving Adult Victims

For personal injury claims arising from sexual offenses against adults, the law establishes:

  • A 5-year statute of limitations from the date of the incident
  • This applies to adult sexual assault and other sexual crimes not involving minors

SEXUAL ABUSE CIVIL STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS CALCULATOR

Sexual Abuse Civil Statute of Limitations Calculator

Statute of Limitations Calculator

Enter your Date of Birth (DOB) and the year the abuse ended. This calculator will provide a rough estimate of whether you may still be within the statute of limitations.

Disclaimer: This calculator provides only an estimate. Many factors can affect the statute of limitations in your case. You should consult with an attorney to understand how the law applies to your specific situation.

2019 Amendment to Section 16.0045 and Its Impact

House Bill 3809, effective September 1, 2019, significantly extended the statute of limitations for child sexual abuse claims from 15 years after the victim’s 18th birthday (age 33) to 30 years (age 48). However, this extension is not retroactive, leading to complex implications for different cases.

Understanding Retroactivity Through Examples

Example 1: Previously Expired Claims

Consider a victim who was abused in 1990 at age 10:

  • Under the old law, their claim expired when they turned 33 (in 2013)
  • When HB 3809 passed in 2019, this claim was already time-barred
  • The new law cannot revive this expired claim
  • The victim has no legal recourse under the current statute

Example 2: Still-Valid Claims

Consider a victim who was abused in 2005 at age 10:

  • Under the old law, their claim would have expired when they turned 33 (in 2028)
  • When HB 3809 passed in 2019, their claim was still valid
  • The new 30-year limitation period applies
  • They now have until age 48 (2043) to file their claim

Example 3: Post-2019 Claims

For abuse that occurred after September 1, 2019:

  • The 30-year post-18 limitation period automatically applies
  • A 10-year-old victim in 2020 would have until 2058 to file (when they turn 48)
  • The extended period applies from the start, with no complexity about retroactivity

tough cases call for tougher lawyers

Practical Implications and Considerations

Practical implications surrounding abuse allegations require a thorough examination of both the dates of abuse and the victim’s age at the time the conduct occurred. Because older and newer statute of limitations (SOL) provisions may apply differently depending on the specifics, it is critically important to keep clear documentation of when the abuse took place. This evidence often determines whether a claim remains viable under current law.

Victims and advocates should consult with legal counsel promptly to clarify how these evolving SOL rules may affect potential claims. Even if a case initially appears time-barred, older allegations may still proceed under alternative legal theories. For this reason, preserving any available documentation or evidence—regardless of whether the SOL seems expired—remains essential. Regardless of the claim’s legal status, survivors are encouraged to seek support services to ensure they receive the care and guidance they need.

Contact Varghese Summersett to Advance a Civil Lawsuit for Child Sexual Abuse

Texas’s current statute of limitations for sexual abuse claims represents a significant evolution in recognizing the unique challenges these cases present. While the 2019 extension provides more time for victims to come forward, the non-retroactive nature of the law means that timing remains a critical factor in determining whether a claim can proceed. If you or a loved one is contemplating filing a civil claim for sexual abuse, give us a call for a confidential, complimentary consultation.

Varghese Summersett

Holding Private Schools Accountable for Sexual Abuse in Texas

When a teacher or faculty member sexually abuses a student, one would expect the school to be held accountable—especially if there were warning signs or ignored reports. In Texas, however, public schools are provided an unconscionable level of immunity that can make legal action against them extremely difficult. Private schools, by contrast, do not benefit from the same broad legal protections and it is still possible hold them responsible for the improper hiring and retention of employees who are involved in sexual abuse in private schools.

Sexual Abuse in Texas Schools

Schools should provide a secure environment where young people can learn, grow, and develop confidence. Families trust teachers, administrators, and other staff to guard their children against harm. Unfortunately, sexual abuse within educational settings continues to be a serious issue, and when such abuse happens, it is often a sign that the school’s protective measures have failed. Survivors of school-related abuse—and their families—may have legal avenues to seek justice and demand accountability from both the perpetrator and the institution.

Taking the step to come forward can be emotionally overwhelming, yet the law does offer ways to pursue justice through civil claims, criminal charges, and institutional reforms. Understanding the nature of sexual abuse in schools is an essential first step. This form of abuse can be carried out by individuals in positions of authority—such as teachers, coaches, or other staff—or even by fellow students. In many cases, abusers manipulate their power or exploit a child’s trust, which makes it difficult for victims to speak out right away.

grooming in schools

Understanding Grooming in Schools

Grooming is a manipulative process used by predators to gain access to a victim, build trust, and ultimately commit abuse while reducing the risk of being caught. This behavior can occur in schools, extracurricular activities, and online, often involving trusted adults such as teachers, coaches, or mentors.

How Grooming Happens

Grooming typically follows a pattern, making it essential to recognize the warning signs early. The process often includes the following stages:

1. Victim Selection

Abusers carefully choose their victims based on their perceived vulnerability or ease of access. They may observe students and identify those who seem isolated, trusting, or in need of attention.

2. Gaining Access and Isolation

To establish control, predators work to separate the victim from protective influences, such as parents, teachers, or friends. They may offer special treatment, private meetings, or extra help to create opportunities for one-on-one interactions.

3. Building Trust and Keeping Secrets

Abusers manipulate victims by offering gifts, giving excessive attention, and creating a sense of special friendship. They often introduce secrecy, encouraging the child to hide details of their relationship from others.

4. Desensitization to Physical Contact and Sexual Topics

What may start as seemingly innocent physical contact—such as hugs, playful wrestling, or back rubs—can escalate into inappropriate touching. Abusers may also introduce discussions about sexual topics, share explicit content, or test boundaries to make the victim more accepting of sexual behavior.

5. Normalizing Abuse

The predator may attempt to make their behavior seem natural to avoid suspicion. Teens, in particular, may struggle to recognize grooming tactics, especially if they involve secrecy, manipulation, or emotional dependence.

Grooming the Family and Community

Groomers do not just target the victim—they often gain the trust of families and communities to reduce suspicion. They may appear helpful, kind, and trustworthy, making it harder for others to believe a child if they report inappropriate behavior.

While most adults involved in a child’s life are well-intentioned, it is important to be aware that grooming can take place in even the safest-seeming environments. Parents should remain engaged in their child’s activities and relationships, encouraging open communication about personal boundaries.

Online Grooming

Predators can also groom victims online, often by posing as children or teens to build trust. They may attempt to gain personal information, send explicit content, or pressure the child into secretive conversations. Parents and educators should teach children about online safety and encourage open discussions about their digital interactions.

Preventing Grooming and Protecting Children

  • Encourage open conversations with children about personal boundaries and safe relationships.
  • Be cautious of adults who insist on spending excessive one-on-one time with a child.
  • Monitor online activity and educate children about online grooming tactics.
  • Teach children that they can say “no” to any behavior that makes them uncomfortable.
  • Trust your instincts—if an adult’s behavior feels inappropriate, take action and report concerns.

protections for public schools

The Unconscionable Protections for Public Schools

There are a number of ways public schools and school districts are protected from bring held responsible in Texas.

Governmental Immunity

Texas public schools are generally shielded by governmental immunity, meaning they cannot be sued for most claims unless the legislature has specifically allowed it. This protection extends to negligence-based lawsuits—such as those alleging negligent hiring, training, or supervision of an abusive employee.

Strict Title IX Requirements

Because of immunity, families seeking to hold a public school responsible for a teacher’s sexual abuse typically rely on Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. Title IX prohibits sex-based discrimination in any education program receiving federal funds, which includes most public schools. However, courts have set a high bar for these cases:

Actual Knowledge

A school official with authority to correct the problem—often a superintendent or a high-level administrator—must have actual knowledge of the abuse or harassment.

Deliberate Indifference

The school’s response must be shown to be so unreasonable that it amounts to deliberate indifference. In other words, it is not enough that the school handled the situation poorly; you must prove they essentially ignored it or failed to act in a way any reasonable institution would.

Severe, Pervasive, and Objectively Offensive

The harassment or assault must be serious and must effectively deprive the victim of educational opportunities. While sexual assault by a teacher clearly meets this threshold of harm, courts still focus heavily on whether top-level officials knew or should have known.

Protection for Public Schools on Appeal

Even when victims win at trial, these cases may be overturned on appeal if the appellate court rules that the district did not meet Title IX’s actual-knowledge requirement. This happened in a high-profile lawsuit involving South San Antonio ISD, where a vice principal allegedly abused a student. A trial court initially awarded $5 million, but the Fifth Circuit reversed it because knowledge by the vice principal himself was not enough to show the district had actual notice.

A 2021 Supreme Court decision, Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller, P.L.L.C., may further limit the damages awarded under Title IX. Because Title IX is enacted under the Constitution’s Spending Clause, some courts now say that victims cannot recover emotional distress damages—often the biggest component of harm in child sexual abuse cases.

HOLDING PRIVATE SCHOOLS RESPONSIBLE

Holding Private Schools Responsible for Sexual Abuse

Private schools do not have the same broad legal protections as public schools. Families can bring standard negligence claims—such as negligent hiring or supervision—without dealing with governmental immunity or strict Title IX standards. This often provides more opportunities to hold private schools accountable.

For example, if a school fails to supervise its employees or properly screen new hires, families may file negligence claims. These claims can lead to compensation for injuries, emotional distress, and other damages. The ability to hold private schools directly liable encourages them to maintain higher safety standards.

Thousands of Texas Parents Entrust Their Children to Private Schools

Thousands of Texas parents entrust their children to private schools, believing they are providing a safe and nurturing environment for their education and growth. When that trust is broken due to negligence or misconduct, it can be incredibly difficult to consider legal action against the very institution you chose for your child. However, holding schools accountable is often the only way to bring about meaningful change, ensuring better protections for students in the future. Pursuing legal action is not just about seeking justice for your own child—it’s about preventing harm to others, pushing schools to enforce stricter safety policies, and demanding the accountability that every family deserves.

Texas Private School City Students Student:Teacher Ratio
The Village School Houston 1,750 11:1
The Awty International School Houston 1,717 7:1
St. John’s School Houston 1,493 7:1
Trinity Christian Academy Addison 1,470 10:1
Prestonwood Christian Academy Plano 1,444 8:1
The Kinkaid School Houston 1,423 10:1
Liberty Christian School Argyle 1,305 11:1
Greenhill School Addison 1,292 9:1
Midland Christian School Midland 1,238 12:1
The John Cooper School The Woodlands 1,201 10:1
Second Baptist School Houston 1,200 12:1
The Episcopal School of Dallas Dallas 1,170 8:1
Cornerstone Christian Schools San Antonio 1,149 12:1
The Parish Episcopal School Dallas 1,130 10:1
Jesuit College Preparatory School Dallas 1,108 8:1
Fort Worth Country Day School Fort Worth 1,100 7:1
San Antonio Christian School San Antonio 1,100 12:1
The Hockaday School Dallas 1,098 9:1
Bishop Lynch High School Dallas 1,052 12:1
Trinity Valley School Fort Worth 1,020 10:1
Strake Jesuit College Preparatory Houston 1,018 12:1
Regents School of Austin Austin 1,011 8:1
St. Mary’s Hall San Antonio 993 7:1
Prince of Peace Christian School Carrollton 958 11:1
Grace Community School Tyler 952 10:1
All Saints Episcopal School Fort Worth 945 8:1
Lutheran South Academy Houston 933 10:1
St. Agnes Academy Houston 927 10:1
St. Andrew’s Episcopal School Austin 890 6:1
St. Mark’s School of Texas Dallas 884 9:1
Episcopal High School Bellaire 824 7:1
Ursuline Academy of Dallas Dallas 800 10:1
The Oakridge School Arlington 800 8:1
The Woodlands Christian Academy The Woodlands 750 10:1
The Highlands School Irving 700 7:1
The Covenant School Dallas 600 8:1
Houston Christian High School Houston 500 8:1
The Lamplighter School Dallas 450 7:1
Cistercian Preparatory School Irving 350 6:1
The Winston School Dallas 200 6:1
The Cambridge School of Dallas Dallas 150 6:1

Tough cases call for the toughest lawyers.

Legal Claims Against Private Schools For Sexual Abuse in Texas

Victims of sexual abuse in private schools may have multiple legal avenues. Some potential claims include:

Negligent Hiring

A school may be liable if it failed to properly screen or check an employee who later harmed a student.

Elements to Prove:

  • Duty of Care: The school is responsible for hiring safe and competent employees, particularly those working with children.
  • Breach of Duty: The school failed to use reasonable care in the hiring process, such as neglecting to check an applicant’s background.
  • Causation:
    • Cause in Fact: The school’s negligent hiring directly allowed a dangerous employee to access students.
    • Proximate Cause & Foreseeability: The harm was a foreseeable consequence of hiring an employee without proper vetting.
  • Damages: The victim must show harm, such as physical injuries or emotional distress.

Negligent Supervision

This claim arises if a school fails to properly monitor its staff or student interactions, allowing abuse to occur.

Elements to Prove:

  • Duty of Care: The school must provide proper supervision to ensure student safety.
  • Breach of Duty: The school’s lack of supervision created an unsafe environment, such as allowing unsupervised access to students.
  • Causation:
    • Cause in Fact: The failure to supervise directly led to the abuse.
    • Proximate Cause & Foreseeability: A reasonable school should have foreseen that poor supervision could lead to harm.
  • Damages: The victim must demonstrate actual harm, such as emotional trauma.

General Negligence

If a school fails to take reasonable steps to protect students from known risks, it may be held liable for general negligence.

Elements to Prove:

  • Duty of Care: The school has a general obligation to provide a safe environment.
  • Breach of Duty: The school did not take reasonable safety measures.
  • Causation:
    • Cause in Fact: The school’s failure to act directly caused the harm.
    • Proximate Cause & Foreseeability: The injury was a foreseeable result of the school’s negligence.
  • Damages: The victim must prove measurable losses.

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

Victims may claim emotional distress if a school’s actions (or inactions) were extreme and caused severe trauma.

Elements to Prove:

  • Extreme and Outrageous Conduct: The school’s actions were beyond what is acceptable in society.
  • Intent or Reckless Disregard: The school either intended to cause distress or recklessly disregarded its impact.
  • Causation:
    • Cause in Fact: The distress resulted from the school’s conduct.
    • Proximate Cause & Foreseeability: The distress was a foreseeable result of the school’s actions.
  • Severe Emotional Distress: The victim must prove their distress was extreme.

Understanding Foreseeability and Proximate Cause

Foreseeability

In negligence claims, foreseeability examines whether a reasonable school should have anticipated that failing to screen or supervise employees could lead to abuse. If harm was foreseeable, the school should have taken preventive measures.

Proximate Cause

Proximate cause links the school’s negligence to the victim’s harm. In Texas, the injury must be a natural and probable result of the school’s failure to act.

our bench is deep

How Varghese Summersett Can Help You

If you or a loved one has suffered abuse at a private school, navigating the legal process can feel overwhelming. The experienced attorneys at Varghese Summersett are here to guide you through every step, ensuring your rights are protected and that justice is pursued.

Guiding You Through the Criminal Investigation

Understanding how the criminal justice system works can be challenging, especially when dealing with trauma. Our attorneys have extensive experience working with law enforcement and prosecutors. We will:

  • Explain the investigation process in clear, simple terms.
  • Ensure you know your rights and what to expect.
  • Work to protect your interests during questioning or testimony.

Connecting You with Experienced Counselors

Healing from trauma is just as important as seeking justice. We understand that legal action is only part of the recovery process. That’s why we help connect you with skilled counselors who specialize in working with survivors of abuse. These professionals provide the support and guidance needed to move forward.

Helping You Properly Document What Happened

Proper documentation is crucial in building a strong case. Our team will assist you in:

  • Gathering and organizing evidence, including medical records and witness statements.
  • Keeping a detailed record of any interactions with the school or law enforcement.
  • Ensuring all necessary legal documents are prepared and filed correctly.

Filing a Demand and Lawsuit

Once we have gathered the necessary evidence, our attorneys will draft a formal demand to the responsible parties. If a fair settlement is not reached, we will take legal action by filing a lawsuit. Our goal is to:

  • Hold the school accountable for its negligence.
  • Seek compensation for medical expenses, emotional distress, and other damages.
  • Ensure policies are changed to protect other students from harm.

Holding the School Responsible

Schools have a duty to protect students, and when they fail, they must be held accountable. By taking legal action, we can help bring justice to victims and push for necessary changes in school policies and safety measures. Our legal team is committed to:

  • Fighting aggressively for your rights.
  • Ensuring those responsible are held liable for their negligence.
  • Advocating for stronger protections for students in private schools.

Contact Varghese Summersett Today

If you or someone you love has been affected by abuse at a private school, do not wait to seek legal help. The attorneys at Varghese Summersett are ready to stand by your side, offering compassionate guidance and aggressive representation. Contact us today to schedule a confidential consultation and take the first step toward justice.

Varghese Summersett

40 Under 40 - 2025Attorney Ty Stimpson, a partner at Varghese Summersett, has been recognized as one of Fort Worth Inc.’s 40 Under 40—a prestigious award honoring the city’s brightest and most promising leaders under age 40.

Stimpson and the other honorees were celebrated on Thursday, Feb. 13, during a banquet at River Ranch Stockyards. He is also featured in this month’s edition of Fort Worth Inc. magazine.

“It’s an honor to be recognized alongside so many exceptional men and women in this city,” Stimpson said. “This award represents more than just individual achievement—it’s a reflection of the mentors who paved the way for me, the clients who trust me to fight for them, and the community that continues to inspire me.”

This marks the first year Fort Worth Inc. has presented the 40 Under 40 awards. Previously, the Fort Worth Business Press oversaw the program, launching the initiative in 1994. Fort Worth Inc. acquired the distinguished program last year.

Attorney Ty Stimpson Named a 40 Under 40 By Fort Worth Inc.

 

 

 

 

The 40 Under 40 awards recognize rising leaders in Greater Fort Worth who are making a lasting impact in business and the community. Over the years, many honorees have become some of the region’s most influential figures. Now, under Fort Worth Inc.’s leadership, the program continues its tradition of celebrating excellence and service.

Stimpson embodies these qualities . As a partner at Varghese Summersett, he leads the firm’s Personal Injury Division, advocating for victims who have suffered catastrophic injuries or lost loved ones due to negligent or wrongful acts. His commitment to service extends far beyond the courtroom—he is actively involved in more than a dozen organizations, including the Tarrant Area Food Bank, Boys & Girls Club of Greater Tarrant County, and the Fort Worth Black Chamber of Commerce.

Through these organizations and others, he champions causes that promote education, equality, and empowerment. His dedication to service and leadership has also earned him the 2023 Young Professional of the Year Award from the Fort Worth Chamber and the 2023 Dr. Marion Brooks “Legend in the Making” Award for Law.

Stimpson is not the first attorney at Varghese Summersett to receive this esteemed recognition. Last year, Anna Summersett, co-founder of the firm, was also honored as a 40 Under 40 recipient.

We couldn’t be more proud of Ty and his well-deserved recognition as one of Fort Worth’s 40 Under 40,” said Managing Partner Benson Varghese. “Having back-to-back recipients from our firm is a testament to the great leaders we have on our team — driven individuals committed to excellence, philanthropy, and service to this city.”

Ty Recognized as 40 Under 40
(From Left to Right: Anna Summersett, Ty Stimpson, Benson Varghese)
Varghese Summersett

Texas is the backbone of American industry. From oil refineries and chemical plants to manufacturing facilities and construction sites, industrial workers keep the economy running. But their jobs come with serious risks. Every year, thousands of Texas industrial workers suffer life-altering injuries or die due to hazardous conditions.

Industrial corporations often prioritize profits over worker safety, cutting corners on maintenance, training, and equipment. When companies fail to protect their employees, the consequences can be catastrophic—explosions, toxic exposure, and fatal falls. If you have suffered an industrial injury or lost a loved one,  you may be entitled to substantial compensation for medical or funeral expenses, lost wages, pain and suffering, and more.

In this article, our Texas industrial injury attorneys at Varghese Summersett give an overview of various types of industrial accidents, common injuries, who can be held liable, and how an experienced personal injury attorney can help.

Types of Industrial Accidents

Types of Industrial Accidents

An industrial accident is an unexpected event that occurs in a workplace, typically in an industrial setting such as construction sites, factories, warehouses, oil rigs, or manufacturing plants. These accidents often result in injuries, illnesses, or fatalities and can be caused by hazardous working conditions, equipment malfunctions, human error, or failure to follow safety protocols. Industrial accidents vary in severity, but many share common causes. Some of the most frequent types of industrial accidents include:

  • Explosions and Fires: Oil refineries, chemical plants, and manufacturing facilities handle flammable materials daily. Poor safety protocols or equipment malfunctions can lead to devastating explosions and fires.
  • Falls from Heights: Construction workers, scaffolders, and industrial laborers often work at significant heights. Faulty ladders, weak railings, or missing harnesses contribute to severe fall-related injuries.
  • Machinery Accidents: Heavy machinery—like forklifts, conveyor belts, and assembly-line equipment—can cause crush injuries, amputations, and fatal accidents if not properly maintained or operated.
  • Toxic Chemical Exposure: Industrial sites use hazardous substances that can cause immediate harm or long-term illnesses, including respiratory diseases and cancer.
  • Electrocution: Unsafe electrical wiring, exposed power lines, and defective tools pose a constant electrocution risk for industrial workers.

Common Industrial Injuries

Common Industrial Injuries

Industrial accidents often result in catastrophic injuries that leave workers unable to return to their jobs. Some of the most common industrial injuries include:

  • Burns – Caused by fires, explosions, or chemical exposure
  • Traumatic Brain Injuries (TBIs) – From falls, falling objects, or machinery accidents
  • Spinal Cord Injuries – Caused by falls, crush accidents or falling objects
  • Amputations – Due to machinery malfunctions or crush accidents
  • Respiratory Diseases – From prolonged exposure to toxic chemicals
  • Hearing Loss – Caused by constant exposure to high-decibel machinery
  • Broken Bones and Crush Injuries – Resulting from falls, equipment malfunctions, or heavy object collisions

How Industrial Accidents Occur

How Industrial Accidents Occur

Industrial accidents are a serious concern that can lead to severe injuries, long-term health consequences, or even fatalities. These incidents often occur due to a combination of negligence, unsafe working conditions, and inadequate training. In many cases, accidents are preventable if proper safety protocols are followed, equipment is well-maintained, and employees receive thorough training. However, when corners are cut or safety regulations are ignored, the likelihood of an accident increases significantly.

The most common causes of industrial accidents include:

  • Poor Maintenance – Failing to repair or replace faulty equipment can lead to dangerous malfunctions, putting workers at risk of injury or exposure to hazardous conditions. Machines that are not regularly inspected may break down unexpectedly, causing catastrophic consequences.
  • Lack of Proper Safety Gear – Many workplaces require protective equipment such as harnesses, helmets, gloves, or fireproof clothing. When this gear is missing or not used properly, workers are left vulnerable to falls, burns, or exposure to harmful chemicals.
  • Inadequate Training – Operating heavy machinery, handling chemicals, or responding to emergencies all require specialized knowledge. When employees do not receive proper training, they are more likely to make mistakes that result in accidents.
  • Overworked Employees – Fatigue is a major contributing factor to workplace accidents. Long hours, insufficient breaks, and demanding workloads can lead to impaired judgment, slower reaction times, and an overall increase in errors that put workers at risk.
  • Unsafe Work Environments – Cluttered floors, unsecured scaffolding, poor ventilation, or hazardous substances left exposed can create dangerous conditions for workers. A lack of proper safety measures in the workplace can lead to slips, falls, chemical exposure, or structural collapses.

Industrial accidents not only affect the injured workers but also have broader consequences for businesses and society. Employers may face legal liability, financial losses, and reputational damage. Meanwhile, injured employees may struggle with medical expenses, lost wages, and long-term disabilities. Preventing industrial accidents requires a proactive approach, including routine safety inspections, strict adherence to regulations, and a workplace culture that prioritizes worker well-being.

Wrongful Death in Industrial Accidents

When an industrial accident results in a fatality, surviving family members may be entitled to compensation through a wrongful death claim. In Texas, wrongful death lawsuits can be filed by the deceased’s spouse, children, or parents under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 71.002.

Eligible family members may seek damages for:

  • Funeral and burial expenses
  • Loss of income and financial support
  • Loss of companionship and emotional suffering
  • Medical expenses incurred before death
  • Punitive damages if gross negligence was involved

In many cases, liability may extend beyond the employer to third parties such as equipment manufacturers, subcontractors, and property owners. A skilled Texas industrial injury attorney can investigate the case, determine liability, and fight for the maximum compensation available under Texas law.

Deadliest Industrial Disasters

Year Location Incident Deaths
1947 Texas City, TX Texas City Disaster (Ship Explosion) 581
1984 Bhopal, India* Union Carbide Chemical Leak 15,000+
2005 Texas City, TX BP Refinery Explosion 15
2013 West, TX West Fertilizer Plant Explosion 15

*Note: The Bhopal disaster was an international tragedy, but Union Carbide was a U.S.-owned company.

Who Can Be Held Liable for Industrial Accidents

Who Can Be Held Liable for Industrial Accidents?

In Texas, liability in industrial accidents can extend beyond just the employer, as multiple parties may bear responsibility for ensuring a safe work environment. Given the state’s significant industrial presence—including oil and gas, construction, and manufacturing—workplace accidents can have serious legal and financial implications. Texas law allows injured workers to pursue claims against various parties whose negligence contributed to the accident, especially when employer-provided workers’ compensation does not fully cover the damages.

Potentially responsible parties in an industrial accident may include:

  • Employers – If an employer fails to maintain safe working conditions, disregards safety regulations, or does not provide adequate training, they can be held liable for accidents that occur on the job. In Texas, many employers subscribe to the state’s workers’ compensation system, which provides financial benefits to injured employees but also limits the ability to sue the employer directly. However, non-subscriber employers—those who opt out of the workers’ compensation system—can be sued for negligence.
  • Manufacturers – If a defective piece of equipment, faulty machinery, or poorly designed safety gear contributed to an accident, the manufacturer may be held responsible under product liability laws. Injured workers may pursue claims for design defects, manufacturing flaws, or failure to provide adequate warnings or instructions.
  • Contractors or Subcontractors – Many Texas industrial workplaces involve multiple contractors and subcontractors working alongside each other. If an independent contractor or subcontractor fails to follow safety protocols, disregards industry standards, or contributes to hazardous conditions, they may be held accountable for injuries resulting from their negligence.
  • Property Owners – If an accident occurs on a job site due to dangerous property conditions—such as unsafe scaffolding, chemical exposure, or structural hazards—the property owner may bear responsibility, particularly if they were aware of the danger and failed to take corrective action.
  • Third-Party Vendors – Industrial facilities often rely on external vendors for maintenance, inspections, and repairs. If an outside maintenance crew neglects safety protocols or improperly services equipment, they can be held liable for any accidents that occur as a result of their negligence.

Navigating liability in Texas industrial accidents can be complex, especially with multiple parties involved. Unlike many states, Texas does not require all employers to carry workers’ compensation insurance, which can open the door for personal injury lawsuits in cases of employer negligence. Additionally, third-party claims allow injured workers to seek compensation beyond what is covered by workers’ comp, holding negligent manufacturers, property owners, or contractors accountable.

Because Texas follows a modified comparative negligence rule, any party found to be more than 50 percent responsible for an accident may be barred from recovering damages. Due to these legal intricacies, injured workers should consult with an experienced attorney who can evaluate the circumstances of their case and pursue rightful compensation.

workmans comp vs. pi claims

Workers’ Compensation vs. Personal Injury Claims in Texas Industrial Accidents

Texas has unique laws regarding workers’ compensation. Unlike most states, Texas does not require private employers to carry workers’ compensation insurance. This means:

  • If your employer has workers’ compensation, you can file a claim but cannot sue them for negligence.
  • If your employer does not have workers’ comp, you may have the right to file a personal injury lawsuit for negligence, which can provide greater compensation.
  • If a third party (such as a contractor or equipment manufacturer) caused the accident, you can pursue a personal injury lawsuit regardless of workers’ comp status.

negligence

Proving Negligence in Industrial Accident Cases

To win an industrial injury case, your Texas industrial accident attorney must prove four things:

  1. Duty of Care – The responsible party had a legal obligation to maintain a safe workplace.
  2. Breach of Duty – The company, manufacturer, or contractor failed to uphold safety regulations.
  3. Causation – The negligence directly caused the industrial accident.
  4. Damages – The accident led to injuries, financial losses, or death.

Here’s a hypothetical example of how these elements might play out in an industrial accident case: John, a 42-year-old refinery worker in Texas, suffered severe burns and a spinal cord injury when a pressurized gas line exploded at his worksite. His employer, XYZ Refining Co., had been previously warned by inspectors about outdated pipes and faulty pressure valves but failed to make necessary repairs.

1. Duty of Care

XYZ Refining Co. had a legal obligation under OSHA regulations and Texas workplace safety laws to maintain a safe work environment. This included ensuring that all machinery, pipelines, and safety protocols were up to standard to prevent hazardous conditions.

2. Breach of Duty

Despite multiple warnings from safety inspectors and employee complaints about leaking gas, XYZ Refining Co. ignored maintenance recommendations. They failed to repair the outdated pipes, neglected to replace the faulty pressure valve, and did not provide proper safety training to workers on emergency shut-off procedures.

3. Causation

The explosion was a direct result of the company’s negligence. Had XYZ Refining Co. properly maintained the gas lines and valves, the accident would have been preventable. Investigators determined that the neglected equipment led to a pressure buildup, which ultimately caused the explosion that injured John.

4. Damages

John suffered third-degree burns, spinal cord trauma, and permanent mobility impairment. His injuries required multiple surgeries, extensive rehabilitation, and he lost his ability to work. His medical bills exceeded $500,000, and he faced emotional trauma and loss of future income.

Hypothetical Outcome

With the help of a Texas industrial injury attorney, John filed a personal injury lawsuit against XYZ Refining Co. His legal team presented OSHA reports, maintenance logs, and expert witness testimony to prove negligence. John was awarded economic, non-economic, and punitive damages for the company’s reckless disregard for safety. This case illustrates how proving negligence requires clear evidence that an employer failed to uphold safety regulations, leading to a preventable workplace accident.

Types of Compensation for a Texas Oilfield Accident

Types of Compensation Available

Industrial injury victims may be entitled to several forms of compensation, depending on the severity of their injuries and the level of negligence involved. Compensation is designed to help victims recover financially, emotionally, and physically after an accident.

Economic Damages

Economic damages cover the tangible, financial losses suffered due to an industrial accident. These include:

  • Medical Expenses – Covers hospital stays, surgeries, doctor visits, medications, rehabilitation, and ongoing care.
  • Lost Wages – Compensation for time missed from work due to the injury.
  • Loss of Future Earnings – If the injury prevents the victim from returning to work, they may be entitled to compensation for lost earning capacity.
  • Rehabilitation Costs – Physical therapy, occupational therapy, and other medical services required for recovery.
  • Home and Vehicle Modifications – If the injury leads to permanent disability, costs for wheelchair ramps, modified vehicles, or in-home medical assistance may be covered.

Non-Economic Damages

These damages compensate for intangible losses that impact the victim’s quality of life. This includes:

  • Pain and Suffering – Compensation for the physical pain endured from the injury.
  • Emotional Distress – Covers the psychological impact, including PTSD, depression, and anxiety.
  • Loss of Enjoyment of Life – When the victim is unable to participate in hobbies, activities, or family life as they did before the accident.
  • Loss of Consortium – Compensation for the negative effects of the injury on a victim’s relationship with their spouse or family.

Punitive Damages

Punitive damages are awarded in cases involving gross negligence or reckless disregard for worker safety. These damages serve as a punishment to the responsible party and a deterrent to prevent similar conduct in the future. Employers or third parties may face punitive damages if they:

  • Knowingly ignored safety violations
  • Failed to provide protective equipment
  • Refused to fix hazardous workplace conditions
  • Concealed known dangers from employees

If you or a loved one has suffered an industrial injury, seeking legal representation is crucial to ensuring you receive the maximum compensation available under Texas law.

Personal Injury Team

How an Experienced Industrial Injury Attorney Can Help

If you have been injured or a loved one killed in an industrial accident, it’s important to contact an experienced Texas industrial accident as soon as possible. A skilled industrial injury attorney will:

  • Investigate the accident and determine liability
  • Collect crucial evidence, including OSHA reports and medical records
  • Negotiate with insurance companies for fair compensation
  • File a lawsuit if necessary and represent you in court
  • Fight to ensure you receive maximum compensation

Speak to a Texas Industrial Injury Attorney Today

If you or a loved one has suffered a serious industrial injury, do not wait. Time is critical in these cases, and evidence can disappear quickly. Varghese Summersett has the experience and resources to take on major industrial corporations and fight for the justice you deserve. Call (817) 203-2220 or contact us online for a free consultation. If we take your case, we will work on contingency, which means you will never pay anything upfront or out-of-pocket. We only get paid after we recover compensation for you.

CTA: Our personal injury lawyer will make sure you are not suffering in silence.

Varghese Summersett

On February 3, 2025, a Tarrant County jury acquitted a Fort Worth man accused of murder in the fatal stabbing of his friend, finding he acted in self-defense.

Jurors in Judge Lee Gabriel’s court deliberated less than three hours before clearing Juan Ramos Escamilla of all charges related to the death of his friend, Augustine Pineda. The defense team of Kara Carreras , Christy Jack, and Audrey Hatcher argued that Escamilla was acting in self-defense when Pineda was stabbed.

Defendant hugging ChristyJack after the Not Guilty Verdict“This case is a heartbreaking reminder of how quickly chaos can escalate into tragedy,” Carreras said. “Juan was forced to defend himself, his wife, and her friends in a moment of fear and confusion during an argument with his friend.”

On July 31, 2023, police responded to a stabbing call just before 3 a.m. at Escamilla’s house in the 4500 block of Merida Avenue. When they arrived, they found Pineda had been stabbed one time in the abdomen. Escamilla was arrested at the scene.

During the trial, 43-year-old Escamilla testified in his own defense. He told the jury that during a gathering at his home, Pineda became increasingly drunk, aggressive, and violent. 

A physical altercation ensued outside between Pineda and several females, including Escamilla’s wife. Escamilla intervened to protect himself and his wife and, when Pineda lunged at him, Escamilla stabbed him one time with his pocketknife.  He died later at an area hospital.

“Everyone has the right to defend themselves and those they love,” Jack said. “This was a classic case of self-defense and I’m grateful the jury agreed.”

Christy Jack Quote _ Self Defense Murder Trial

Varghese Summersett

There was a record number of Houston traffic deaths last year, solidifying the city’s reputation as one of the most dangerous places in the nation for drivers, passengers, and pedestrians. According to a recent article in the Houston Chronicle , 345 people died on city streets in 2024 – an alarming 15 percent increase from the year before.

This is not just a statistic—it’s a crisis. Every one of these deaths represents a family left devastated, a community left mourning, and possibly a preventable tragedy that should have never happened. If someone you love has been killed on a Houston-area street, it’s imperative to contact an experienced Houston personal injury attorney as soon as possible.

In this article, our wrongful death attorneys discuss the primary causes of Houston traffic deaths, including pedestrian accidents, who can be held liable, and what family members should do to seek justice and compensation when tragedy strikes. But first, please watch this video by Ty Stimpson, who leads Varghese Summersett’s personal injury team.

Common Causes of Houston Traffic Deaths

Houston’s roads have become increasingly deadly, with a record number of traffic fatalities reported in 2024. Understanding the root causes of these tragedies is critical to preventing future accidents and holding negligent parties accountable. The most common causes of Houston traffic deaths include:

1. Drunk and Impaired Driving
Driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs continues to be one of the leading causes of fatal crashes in Houston. Impaired drivers have reduced reaction times, impaired judgment, and an increased likelihood of making deadly mistakes behind the wheel.

2. Speeding and Reckless Driving
Excessive speed is a major factor in fatal accidents, as it reduces a driver’s ability to react to sudden hazards and increases the severity of collisions. Reckless driving, such as aggressive lane changes, tailgating, and street racing, also contributes to the rising death toll.

3. Distracted Driving
With smartphones, in-car entertainment systems, and other distractions, many drivers are not fully focused on the road. Texting, talking on the phone, and even adjusting GPS settings can take a driver’s attention away for just a few seconds—often with deadly consequences.

4. Poor Road Conditions and Infrastructure Issues
Houston’s rapid growth has led to congested highways, poorly designed intersections, and dangerous pedestrian crossings. Inadequate lighting, potholes, and missing or unclear traffic signs also play a role in fatal accidents.

5. Pedestrian and Cyclist Vulnerability
Houston has long struggled with pedestrian safety. Many areas lack proper crosswalks, sidewalks, or bike lanes, forcing pedestrians and cyclists to navigate dangerous roadways. Drivers who fail to yield or watch for non-motorists contribute to the rising number of pedestrian and bicycle fatalities.

6. Running Red Lights and Stop Signs
Intersections are among the most dangerous places on Houston roads. Many fatal crashes occur when drivers run red lights, ignore stop signs, or fail to yield the right of way—often at high speeds.

7. Weather-Related Crashes
Houston’s unpredictable weather, including heavy rain and flash flooding, makes driving conditions hazardous. Many drivers fail to adjust their speed for wet or slick roads, leading to hydroplaning and loss of control.

8. Drowsy Driving
Fatigue-related crashes are on the rise, particularly among truck drivers and shift workers. A drowsy driver’s impairment can be just as dangerous as a drunk driver’s, with slowed reaction times and an increased risk of falling asleep behind the wheel.

9. Failure to Wear Seatbelts
Seatbelts save lives, but many fatal crashes in Houston involve passengers who were unrestrained. Not wearing a seatbelt significantly increases the likelihood of severe injury or death in a crash.

As Houston continues to grow, so does the risk on its roads. While many of these accidents could have been prevented, those responsible must be held accountable. If your loved one has been killed in a Houston traffic accident, an experienced personal injury attorney can help you pursue justice and compensation.

Houston Pedestrian Fatalities

Houston Pedestrian Fatalities

In 2024, Houston experienced a significant increase in pedestrian fatalities, with 119 pedestrians losing their lives on city streets—a substantial portion of the 345 total traffic deaths that year. Notably, more than half of these pedestrian fatalities occurred on roads with speed limits of 45 mph or higher, and 44 pedestrians died on Houston interstates, surpassing the 43 driver fatalities in the same areas.

Several factors contribute to the high rate of pedestrian fatalities in Houston:

  1. High-Speed Roadways: Many pedestrian deaths occur on high-speed roads where crossing safely is challenging due to fast-moving traffic.
  2. Infrastructure Deficiencies: The absence of adequate crosswalks, sidewalks, and pedestrian signals forces individuals to navigate dangerous areas without proper safety measures.
  3. Driver Negligence: Incidents of drivers failing to yield, speeding, or driving distractedly significantly increase the risk to pedestrians.
  4. Limited Lighting: Poorly lit streets make pedestrians less visible to drivers, especially during nighttime hours.

In response to the rising number of pedestrian fatalities, the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) launched the “Be Safe. Drive Smart” campaign in October 2024. This initiative aims to encourage drivers to slow down and remain vigilant for pedestrians, particularly during months with reduced daylight.

Despite these efforts, pedestrian fatalities remain a critical concern in Houston. If someone you love has been killed in a pedestrian accident, it’s essential to consult with an experienced Houston personal injury attorney to explore your legal options and seek justice for your loss. We offer free, no-pressure consultations. We also work on contingency, which means you only pay after we win your case. You will never pay anything upfront or out-of-pocket.

Compensation in Wrongful Death Cases

Legal Options for Victims and Families

When a loved one is killed traffic accident due to someone’s negligence, families have legal options to seek justice and compensation. At Varghese Summersett, our Houston personal injury attorneys fight for victims and their families in cases involving negligent drivers, unsafe road conditions, and corporate liability. Understanding the available legal avenues is crucial for ensuring accountability and financial relief during an incredibly difficult time.

Wrongful Death Claims in Houston Traffic Fatalities

Under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code §71.002, certain family members—including the spouse, children, or parents of the deceased—can file a wrongful death lawsuit against the party responsible for the fatal accident. A wrongful death claim seeks to compensate surviving family members for their profound loss. Potential damages may include:

  • Funeral and burial expenses
  • Lost financial support and income that the deceased would have provided
  • Loss of companionship and emotional support
  • Emotional pain and suffering endured by surviving family members

These claims are designed to hold negligent drivers, government agencies, and corporations accountable when their actions or inaction result in tragic and preventable fatalities.

negligence

Elements Required to Prove a Wrongful Death Claim in a Houston Traffic Death

To successfully pursue a wrongful death claim, the following four key elements must be established:

Duty of Care – The defendant (such as a negligent driver, trucking company, or government agency) had a duty to operate their vehicle or maintain the roadway in a safe and responsible manner.

Breach of Duty – The defendant failed to uphold this duty by acting negligently or recklessly, such as by speeding, running a red light, driving under the influence, or failing to provide safe pedestrian crossings.

Causation – The defendant’s actions or negligence directly caused the fatal accident. This may require evidence such as police reports, witness statements, and accident reconstruction analysis.

Damages – The family has suffered significant losses, including financial hardship, emotional distress, and other damages as a result of their loved one’s death.

Proving these elements requires thorough investigation, expert testimony, and a strong legal strategy, which is why having an experienced Houston wrongful death attorney is essential.

Survival Claims in Houston Traffic Fatalities

In addition to a wrongful death claim, Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code §71.021 allows the victim’s estate to file a survival claim. Unlike wrongful death claims, which compensate surviving family members, a survival claim seeks damages on behalf of the deceased for losses they suffered before passing away.

These damages may include:

  • Medical expenses incurred before death
  • Pain and suffering endured before passing
  • Lost wages if the victim survived for a period after the accident but later succumbed to their injuries

Survival claims ensure that the at-fault party is held accountable for all consequences of their actions, even if the victim did not pass away immediately.

Third-Party Liability in Houston Traffic Deaths

While many wrongful death cases focus on individual drivers, third parties may also bear responsibility for a fatal accident. Potential third-party claims include:

  • Commercial or trucking companies – If a negligent truck driver caused the crash while working, their employer may be liable.
  • Bars or establishments – Under Texas Dram Shop laws, businesses that over-serve alcohol to an already intoxicated person who then causes a fatal crash may be held responsible.
  • Government agencies – If unsafe road conditions, poor traffic control, or a failure to maintain roadways contributed to the accident, the city or state could be liable.
  • Auto manufacturers – If a vehicle defect, such as faulty brakes or airbag failure, played a role in the crash, the manufacturer may be legally responsible.

Identifying all responsible parties is crucial to maximizing compensation and ensuring full accountability.

Wrongful Death: What to Do If Your Loved One Was Killed

What to Do If Your Loved One Was Killed in a Houston Traffic Accident

Losing a loved one in a sudden traffic accident is heartbreaking, and the emotional toll can be overwhelming. While no amount of compensation can bring them back, taking the right legal steps can help protect your family’s future and ensure those responsible are held accountable. If your loved one was killed in a Houston traffic accident, here’s what steps to take:

  1. Obtain a Copy of the Police Report – This document is essential for understanding the details of the accident, including statements from witnesses and any citations issued to the at-fault party.
  2. Preserve Evidence – If possible, collect photos and videos of the accident scene, vehicle damage, road conditions, and any other relevant factors. Surveillance footage, dashcam recordings, and 911 call logs can also provide critical evidence.
  3. Identify Witnesses – Witness testimony can be crucial in determining fault and strengthening your claim. If anyone saw the accident happen, try to get their contact information.
  4. Consult an Experienced wrongful death Attorney – A skilled Houston wrongful death lawyer will handle every aspect of your case, from investigating the accident to negotiating with insurance companies and pursuing legal action if necessary. They will work tirelessly to secure the compensation your family deserves.
  5. Don’t Speak with Insurance Adjusters Without Legal Representation – Insurance companies often attempt to minimize payouts or shift blame. Let your attorney handle all communications to ensure your rights are protected.
  6. Take Action Quickly – Texas law imposes a strict two-year statute of limitations on wrongful death claims. Failing to act within this timeframe could jeopardize your ability to recover compensation.

Navigating a wrongful death claim can be complex, but you don’t have to go through it alone. Contact our Houston wrongful death attorneys today for a free consultation. We will guide you through the legal process and fight for justice on behalf of your loved one.

Get the Justice Your Loved One Deserves – Contact Us Today

Losing a loved one in a preventable traffic accident is devastating, but you don’t have to face this fight alone. At Varghese Summersett, our compassionate and experienced wrongful death attorneys will stand by your side, guide you through the process, and pursue the justice and compensation you deserve for the death of your loved one.

Call us today for a free, no-obligation consultation. We will thoroughly evaluate your case, explain your legal options, and take immediate action to hold the responsible parties accountable. Your family’s future matters—let us help you protect it.

Houston Traffic Deaths Hit Record High | Wrongful Death Lawyers

Varghese Summersett

On February 4, 2025, a Tarrant County jury acquitted a Fort Worth man accused of murder in the fatal stabbing of his friend, finding he acted in self-defense.

Jurors in Judge Lee Gabriel’s court deliberated less than three hours before clearing Juan Ramos Escamilla of all charges related to the death of his friend, Augustine Pineda. The defense team of Kara Carreras , Christy Jack, and Audrey Hatcher argued that Escamilla was acting in self-defense when Pineda was stabbed.

“This case is a heartbreaking reminder of how quickly chaos can escalate into tragedy,” Carreras said. “Juan was forced to defend himself, his wife, and her friends in a moment of fear and confusion during an argument with his friend.”

On July 31, 2023, police responded to a stabbing call just before 3 a.m. at Escamilla’s house in the 4500 block of Merida Avenue. When they arrived, they found Pineda had been stabbed one time in the abdomen. Escamilla was arrested at the scene.

Defendant hugging ChristyJack after the Not Guilty VerdictDuring the trial, 43-year-old Escamilla testified in his own defense. He told the jury that during a gathering at his home, Pineda became increasingly drunk, aggressive, and violent. 

A physical altercation ensued outside between Pineda and several females, including Escamilla’s wife. Escamilla intervened to protect himself and his wife and, when Pineda lunged at him, Escamilla stabbed him one time with his pocketknife.  He died later at an area hospital.

“Everyone has the right to defend themselves and those they love,” Jack said. “This was a classic case of self-defense and I’m grateful the jury agreed.”

Varghese Summersett

Tom Welling, the 47-year-old actor best known for portraying Clark Kent in the Superman prequel series Smallville , was recently arrested for driving under the influence (DUI) in Yreka, California. The arrest took place just after midnight on January 26, 2025, in an Arby’s parking lot.

The case raises an interesting legal question that frequently comes up in DWI cases at our Texas criminal defense firm: If Welling was parked when officers found him, could he still be considered “driving” for the purposes of a DUI arrest?

While his case will be handled under California law, we’ll explore how a similar scenario might play out in Texas. In Texas, the term “Driving While Intoxicated” (DWI) can be misleading—because a person doesn’t actually have to be driving to be charged. Instead, the law focuses on whether the individual was operating a vehicle.

In this article, the criminal defense attorneys at Varghese Summersett break down what constitutes the operation of a vehicle under Texas law, how it applies to DWI cases, and whether someone in Welling’s situation could face similar charges in the Lone Star State.

We’ll be watching to see how the Smallville Star’s DUI arrest unfolds in California.

operation of a vehicle

Operation of a Vehicle in Texas DWI Cases

When most people think of Driving While Intoxicated in Texas , they imagine someone behind the wheel, actively driving. However, the term “DWI” is somewhat of a misnomer. A person does not actually have to be driving a vehicle to be charged with DWI in Texas. Instead, they must be operating a vehicle while intoxicated. The legal elements of a DWI charge in Texas are:

  • The defendant;
  • On or about a particular date;
  • Operated;
  • A motor vehicle;
  • In a public place;
  • While intoxicated.

Notably, “driving” is not one of the required elements. Instead, a prosecutor must prove that the person was operating the vehicle. This is why prosecutors often emphasize “putting the defendant behind the wheel.” With serious consequences on the line, securing the best possible legal defense is critical if you have been accused of DWI where operation is an issue.

Would Have Been Arrested In Texas?

Smallville Star’s DUI Arrest: Would it Have Happened in Texas?

If the Smallville Star’s DUI arrest had happened in Texas instead of California, the legal outcome could have been different, but it’s also likely he would have been arrested here, as well. Several factors could influence whether he would face a DWI charge in the Lone Star State, including:

    • Was the car running? If the engine was on, even if he was parked, it could be considered operation.
    • Was he in the driver’s seat? Sitting in the driver’s seat, especially with the car on, increases the likelihood of an operation finding.
    • Were his hands on the wheel? Any physical interaction with the vehicle’s controls could support an argument for operation.
    • Did he admit to driving? Statements like “I was just driving here” or “I was about to leave” could be used as evidence of operation.
    • Was there other circumstantial evidence: If the car was in an unusual position – partially on the curb or in a drive-thru lane – it could indicate the vehicle had been recently operated.

In Texas, if an officer determines there is enough evidence that Welling operated his vehicle while intoxicated, he could be arrested and charged with DWI—even if he was parked when found. It’s important to note that, at this time, not a lot of information has been revealed regarding the Smallville Star’s DUI arrest. It will be interesting to see how the prosecution plays out.

Arrest for DWI for Sleeping in Car?

Can You Avoid a DWI in Texas by Sleeping in Your Car?

Short Answer:
If you do anything beyond turning on the car for heat or air conditioning—such as putting it in gear, stepping on the brake, or moving it—you risk being arrested for DWI.

Longer Answer:
Each case is unique. Courts assess the totality of the circumstances, meaning they will look at all factors surrounding the situation. No published Texas case establishes that simply being inside a running vehicle is enough to prove operation. However, if there is at least one additional “operation fact,” a jury may find that the person operated the vehicle.

Texas DWI vs. California DUI

How Texas DWI Laws Differ from California DUI Laws

While both Texas and California have laws prohibiting driving under the influence, there are key differences in how each state defines and prosecutes these offenses. The Smallville Star’s DUI arrest highlights these legal distinctions.

1. Terminology: DWI vs. DUI

– Texas: The offense is called Driving While Intoxicated (DWI), and it applies to both alcohol and drug impairment.
– California: The term Driving Under the Influence (DUI) is used, covering impairment from alcohol, drugs, or a combination of both.

2. Definition of “Driving” and “Operation”

– Texas: A person does not need to be actively driving to be charged with DWI. Instead, the law focuses on whether they were operating the vehicle. Courts have broadly interpreted operation to mean taking any action that could make the vehicle move, such as having the engine running while in the driver’s seat.
– California: The law requires a person to have been driving the vehicle. Simply being in a parked car while intoxicated is not always enough for a DUI charge.

3. Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) Limits
Both states have a standard 0.08% BAC limit for most drivers.
– Texas: Has a stricter zero-tolerance policy for drivers under 21, meaning any detectable alcohol can result in a charge.
– California: It also has a zero-tolerance law for underage drivers but allows for slightly more discretion in enforcement.

4. Field Sobriety and Chemical Testing Laws

– Texas: Has implied consent laws, meaning that refusing a breath or blood test results in an automatic license suspension. However, officers typically need a warrant to draw blood unless there are exigent circumstances.
– California: Also has implied consent laws, but a person can refuse a preliminary breath test without penalty. After arrest, refusal results in license suspension and enhanced penalties.

5. Penalties and Consequences

– Texas: DWI penalities increase with prior offenses and aggravating factors. Even a first offense can lead to a license suspension, fines and possible jail time. Texas also has a 72-hour mandatory jail time for a first offense if a person has a BAC of .15 or higher.
– California: First time DUI offenders may face a license suspension, fines, and mandatory DUI education programs. Jail time is possibly avoidable with probation or alternative sentencing.


6. Can You Get a DUI/DWI While Parked?

– Texas: If a person is in a parked car but is found to be “operating” it in some way (e.g., engine running, foot on the brake), they can be charged with DWI.
– California: Being in a parked car may not automatically result in a DUI; prosecutors typically need additional evidence, such as an admission of driving. It remains to be seen what the evidence is in the Smallville Star’s DUI arrest.

Bottom Line:
Texas law is generally broader in its interpretation of operation, making it easier to charge someone with DWI even if they were not actively driving. In contrast, California’s DUI laws typically require stronger evidence that a person was in control of the vehicle with the intent to drive.

Protect Yourself Against DWI Charges

The Smallville Star’s DUI arrest serves as a reminder of how serious impaired driving charges can be, no matter the state. Texas law is strict when it comes to DWI offenses, and the concept of operation can be broadly interpreted.

At Varghese Summersett, our experienced DWI attorneys understand the nuances of Texas law and have a proven track record of defending clients against DWI charges. If you have been arrested for an intoxication offense, call us today  at 817-203-2220 to discuss your case and find out how we can help. Your future is too important to leave to chance.

The best criminal defense lawyers don't let a single moment define your life.