CompFox AI Summary
Clint Cheatham, an apprentice electrician, died after falling from a Sam’s Wholesale Club sign while performing maintenance. His wife, daughter, and mother (Robyn Cheatham, Brooke Cheatham, and Marie Brown) sued Samco Properties, Inc., and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., for wrongful death, alleging products liability and negligence. The jury found Wal-Mart negligent and Cheatham contributorily negligent, apportioning fault at 50% each, and awarded damages. Wal-Mart appealed, challenging jury instructions, sufficiency of evidence for duty, proximate cause, apportionment of negligence, the ad litem fee, and pecuniary loss damages. The appellate court affirmed the jury's findings on duty, proximate cause, and negligence apportionment, and pecuniary losses. However, the court found the ad litem fee excessive and remanded that portion of the judgment for further proceedings.
Samco Properties, Inc. v. Cheatham is a workers' compensation case decided in Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston). 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 Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston).
Full Decision Text1 Pages
Clint Cheatham, an apprentice electrician, died after falling from a Sam’s Wholesale Club sign while performing maintenance. His wife, daughter, and mother (Robyn Cheatham, Brooke Cheatham, and Marie Brown) sued Samco Properties, Inc., and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., for wrongful death, alleging products liability and negligence. The jury found Wal-Mart negligent and Cheatham contributorily negligent, apportioning fault at 50% each, and awarded damages. Wal-Mart appealed, challenging jury instructions, sufficiency of evidence for duty, proximate cause, apportionment of negligence, the ad litem fee, and pecuniary loss damages. The appellate court affirmed the jury's findings on duty, proximate cause, and negligence apportionment, and pecuniary losses. However, the court found the ad litem fee excessive and remanded that portion of the judgment for further proceedings.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.