Last Thursday, a Dallas county court judge ordered actual damages to a widow in the amount of $2,385,100.00 after receiving no answer from two heirs in a seven-vehicle collision wrongful death case that was caused by the Defendant reversing and parking his vehicle in the way of oncoming highway traffic, and that resulted in the death of the Defendant.
The Order came after several attempts by Plaintiff to serve the late Defendant’s heirs and after an Order initially granting partial default judgment as to liability only.
[Field Diagram of Seven-Vehicle Collision from Pg. 1 of Crash Report]
– DETAILS –
1.Plaintiff Learns Defendant is Dead and Seeks to Serve Heirs
Plaintiff, the decedent’s wife, initially filed her petition not knowing the Defendant had also died as a result of the crash. Two months after filing suit, Plaintiff filed a Suggestion of Death, informing the Court that the “Defendant herein, died after the date of the motor vehicle collision in question and prior to the filing of this lawsuit.”
Plaintiff then located Defendant’s heirs–his two sons–and filed a Motion for Scire Facias Pursuant to Rule 152 Due to Death of Defendant, requesting the Court to issue writs of Scire Facias for each of them, citing authority that it ‘not only abrogates the common-law rule that death abates suit, but also provides for substitution of any person or persons succeeding to the rights of the original party.’
The Court granted Plaintiff’s Motions, and allowed her to serve the heirs via writ of Scire Facias. Because the writs expire within a certain timeframe, the Court ultimately granted several re-issuances throughout Plaintiff’s year-long efforts.
2. Plaintiff Files Motion for Substituted Service
After numerous unsuccessful attempts to serve each son, and after obtaining signed affidavits from the process server explaining such, Plaintiff filed motions for substituted service for each son, in lieu of personal service.
In support, Plaintiff referenced “Texas courts have previously allowed an applicant to serve a writ of scire facias by substituted service.”
Plaintiff informed the Court that, regarding Son 1, the address they tried to serve him at “appear[ed] to be a ‘good address,’” per the process server, and was supported by “vehicle registration records.”
Son 2, Plaintiff advised, owned the vehicle Defendant was driving and the crash report indicated an address for the vehicle, which was a “good address as confirmed by the leasing office.” Plaintiff’s counsel additionally advised the Court that they had sent correspondence to Son 2 at that address and he called them back about it, further confirming this was his true address.
The Court granted Plaintiff’s requests, allowing both sons to be served by substituted service “by delivering a copy of the citation and original petition to anyone over the age of sixteen (16), or by affixing to the front door.”
Neither son answered.
3. Plaintiff Obtains Judgment as to Liability
Approximately one month after both sons were served via substituted service, Plaintiff filed Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment, asking “the Court to render a default judgment establishing Defendant’s liability, and after a hearing, render a final judgment awarding Plaintiff damages in the amount to be determined by the Court.”
Four days later, the Court signed an Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Default Judgment, handwriting the word “Partial” into the title and “as to liability only” after granted.
Additionally, the Court wrote in the Order, that “Plaintiff is responsible for setting a final hearing on damages prior to dismissal or to have otherwise submitted the necessary evidence.”
Following this, the case was briefly dismissed for want of prosecution due to Plaintiff failing to file a motion to retain, but was reinstated shortly thereafter.
4. Plaintiff Obtains Judgment as to Damages
On March 30, 2025, Plaintiff filed Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment on Damages, asking the Court to grant her the following unliquidated damages:
- $400,000.00 for mental anguish for the loss of Plaintiff’s husband
- $400,000.00 for loss of consortium associated with the loss of Plaintiff’s husband
- $1,585,100.00 for economic damages (comprised of total lost wages, lost contributions to household maintenance, and funeral expenses)
On April 3, 2025, the Court signed a Final Default Judgment granting all of the above.
– CASE INFO –
County:
Dallas
Court:
County Court at Law No. 2
Judge Presiding:
Hon. Melissa Bellan
Cause #:
CC-23-00308-B
Caption:
Carmen Acosta, Individually, and as Heir to the Estate of Jose Acosta v. Portillo Reyes Chavez
Claims:
Negligence, Wrongful Death
Counsel for 𝛑:
Ted B. Lyon, Richard Mann and Aidan Moffatt of TED B. LYON & ASSOCIATES
Counsel for 𝝙:
n/a