CompFox AI Summary
Cletus Ronald Feazell and Mary Margaret Feazell, parents and independent executors of their deceased son John Clayton Tad Feazell's estate, sued Mesa Airlines, Inc. following Tad's death in a plane crash. The Feazells alleged Mesa's gross negligence and intentional acts caused Tad's death by requiring him to fly while fatigued in an inadequately equipped aircraft, leading to hypoxia. Mesa sought summary judgment, arguing workers' compensation statutes from Texas, New Mexico, and Colorado provided the exclusive remedy. The trial court granted summary judgment for Mesa. On appeal, the Court reversed and remanded, finding Mesa failed to conclusively prove lack of intent to injure Tad, particularly under the substantial certainty rule in Texas law, and that a fact issue remained regarding whether Tad's estate could assert a survival action for intentional injuries. The court also noted that Mesa's affirmative defense based on New Mexico and Colorado statutes was not properly pled.
Feazell v. Mesa Airlines, Inc. is a workers' compensation case decided in Court of Appeals of Texas. This case addresses legal issues related to compensation claims, benefits, and court rulings.
It is commonly referenced in legal research involving workers' compensation laws in Court of Appeals of Texas.
Full Decision Text1 Pages
Cletus Ronald Feazell and Mary Margaret Feazell, parents and independent executors of their deceased son John Clayton "Tad" Feazell's estate, sued Mesa Airlines, Inc. following Tad's death in a plane crash. The Feazells alleged Mesa's gross negligence and intentional acts caused Tad's death by requiring him to fly while fatigued in an inadequately equipped aircraft, leading to hypoxia. Mesa sought summary judgment, arguing workers' compensation statutes from Texas, New Mexico, and Colorado provided the exclusive remedy. The trial court granted summary judgment for Mesa. On appeal, the Court reversed and remanded, finding Mesa failed to conclusively prove lack of intent to injure Tad, particularly under the "substantial certainty" rule in Texas law, and that a fact issue remained regarding whether Tad's estate could assert a survival action for intentional injuries. The court also noted that Mesa's affirmative defense based on New Mexico and Colorado statutes was not properly pled.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.