Burk Royalty Co. v. Walls
Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.
Status
More on how this was screened
The Texas Supreme Court later said the statute codified the basic definition but rejected the “some carelessness” approach that had developed from Burk Royalty. All 53 flagged citations have been read; the 2 confirmed treatments are listed below.
53 later cases cite Burk Royalty Co. v. Walls; 53 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.
Relying on Burk Royalty Co. v. Walls?
This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.
Treatments
Superseded by statute
-
A federal district court held that a later Texas statute required proof of actual conscious indifference for punitive damages, raising the burden above Burk Royalty's earlier formulation.
Johnson v. Continental Airlines, Inc. (In re Air Crash Disaster at Stapleton International Airport) · United States District Court for the District of Colorado · filed
Plaintiffs rely on Burk Royalty v. Walls, 616 S.W.2d 911 (Tex.1981), for the proposition that the court’s instructions and the jury’s verdict misrepresents the Texas standard. But the legislative history of § 41.001(5) of the Texas Code of Civil Practice and Remedies clearly states that the modified definition of “gross negligence” was designed to raise plaintiff’s burden above that articulated in Burk Royalty. Motford, 25 Houston L.Rev. at 320 and n. 35 (quoting statements of Sen. Gallagher). The Texas statute requires that a plaintiff “establish” defendant’s “actual conscious indifference” to the safety of the plaintiff. At a minimum, the statute establishes a subjective analysis of defendant’s state of mind and abrogates prior statements of Texas law which conflict with this interpretation.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Overruled in part
-
The Texas Supreme Court overruled Burk Royalty in part by rejecting its “some carelessness” review and required proof of both extreme risk and conscious indifference.
Transportation Insurance Co. v. Moriel · Supreme Court of Texas · filed
In this way, Burk Royalty established a “some carelessness” standard of legal sufficiency review that was as favorable to punitive damage awards as the earlier- “some care” test had been hostile to them. ... “Some carelessness” review invariably confuses two very different things: (1) some evidence of carelessness, and (2) legally sufficient evidence that the defendant was consciously indifferent to the rights, safety, or welfare of others. The fundamental defect in the “some carelessness” approach is that it fails to consider the definition of gross negligence as a whole. ... Gross negligence, then, differs from ordinary negligence with respect to both elements — the defendant must be “consciously indifferent” and his or her conduct must “create an extreme degree of risk.”
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Does this case still carry your argument?
Describe your facts. Ezel reads Burk Royalty Co. v. Walls and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace