Shoemake v. Fogel, Ltd., A.T.
Texas Supreme Court
826 S.W.2d 933 (1992)
- Written by Serena Lipski, JD
Facts
Miranda Gilley was almost two years old when she nearly drowned in the swimming pool at her apartment complex. Miranda was rescued, but she died four months later from the injuries she sustained when nearly drowning. Miranda’s mother, Janet Shoemake, filed an action against the apartment-complex owners, Fogel, Ltd., A.T. (defendant) and Federal Group I (defendant), and the apartment-complex manager, International Property Management, Inc. (defendant) (collectively the apartment complex) for negligence. Shoemake’s complaint asserted a claim for wrongful death as well as a survival action as a representative of Miranda’s estate. The apartment complex alleged that Shoemake was negligent in her management, supervision, and control of Miranda. The jury awarded Shoemake damages for both claims, and the jury found that the apartment complex was 55 percent negligent and Shoemake was 45 percent negligent in Miranda’s death. The court reduced Shoemake’s wrongful-death claim by 45 percent but did not do the same for the survival action. The apartment complex appealed, and the court of appeals reversed, holding that the apartment complex was entitled to contribution for the survival action as well as the wrongful-death claim. Shoemake appealed, arguing that the apartment complex is not entitled to contribution from Shoemake because the doctrine of parental immunity bars Miranda’s estate from seeking damages from Shoemake.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Mauzy, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 796,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.