Stringer v. Eleventh Court of Appeals
| Decision Date | 02 July 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. C-5329,C-5329 |
| Citation | 720 S.W.2d 801 |
| Parties | Vikki B. STRINGER, Administratrix of the Estate of Ricky Dowd Stringer, Deceased, Relator, v. The ELEVENTH COURT OF APPEALS, Respondent. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
R. Temple Dickson, Moore, Dickson, Roberts & Ratliff, Inc., Sweetwater, J. Donald Bowen and David R. Miller, Helm, Pletcher, Hogan, Bowen & Saunders, Houston, for relator.
Zollie C. Steakley, Wilks & Steakley, Sweetwater, William F. Peters and Brad G. Repass, Hudson, Keltner, Smith Brants & Sparks, Fort Worth, for respondent.
This is an original mandamus action. Relator, Vikki Stringer, seeks a writ of mandamus directing the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Supreme Judicial District to rescind its mandamus orders which found information obtained in a post-accident investigation privileged under TEX.R.CIV.P. 166b(3)(d) and also reversed the trial court's discovery sanctions order against defendant, the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company v. Kirk, 705 S.W.2d 829. We hold the information is discoverable because it was not obtained at a time when Santa Fe had good cause to believe suit would be filed. The court of appeals abused its discretion by granting mandamus relief from the sanctions order, because there was an adequate remedy by appeal. Therefore, the writ is conditionally granted.
The underlying lawsuit arose as the result of a collision between an Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company freight train and a Missouri-Pacific freight train in which R.D. Stringer, head brakeman of the Santa Fe train, was killed. Stringer's wife, Vikki, filed suit against Santa Fe.
Santa Fe Special Agent John Holem conducted an investigation of the accident. At his deposition Santa Fe permitted Holem to testify regarding information he obtained on the day of the accident. However, Santa Fe asserted that information Holem obtained thereafter, including his interview with the Santa Fe train conductor the day after the accident and his investigation notebook, were privileged under TEX.R.CIV.P. 166b(3)(d). The trial court rendered an order requiring disclosure of this information and later signed an order imposing sanctions of $200 as attorney's fees based on Santa Fe's failure to disclose.
In Robinson v. Harkins & Company, 711 S.W.2d 619 (1986), we held the investigation privilege embodied in TEX.R.CIV.P. 166b(3)(d) is still governed by the rule established in Allen v. Humphreys, 559 S.W.2d 798 (Tex.1977...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Walker v. Packer
...808 S.W.2d 56, 59-60 (Tex.1991); Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., v. Walker, 787 S.W.2d 954, 955 (Tex.1990); Stringer v. Eleventh Court of Appeals, 720 S.W.2d 801, 801-02 (Tex.1986). In Hooks, for example, we reaffirmed that the "cost or delay of having to go through trial and the appellate p......
-
National Tank Co. v. Brotherton
...Lone Star Dodge, Inc. v. Marshall, 736 S.W.2d 184, 189 (Tex.App.--Dallas 1987, orig. proceeding). We held in Stringer v. Eleventh Court of Appeals, 720 S.W.2d 801 (Tex.1986), that "[t]he mere fact that an accident has occurred is not sufficient to clothe all post-accident investigations .........
-
Scott v. Twelfth Court of Appeals
...704 S.W.2d 746 (Tex.1986); Street v. Second Court of Appeals, 715 S.W.2d 638 (Tex.1986) (per curiam); Stringer v. Eleventh Court of Appeals, 720 S.W.2d 801 (Tex.1986) (per curiam); Klein Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Fourteenth Court of Appeals, 720 S.W.2d 87 (Tex.1986); Houston Health Clubs, Inc. v......
-
National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania v. Ninth Court of Appeals
...Court of Appeals, 762 S.W.2d 898 (Tex.1988); Hoffman v. Fifth Court of Appeals, 756 S.W.2d 723 (Tex.1988); Stringer v. Eleventh Court of Appeals, 720 S.W.2d 801 (Tex.1986); Street v. Second Court of Appeals, 715 S.W.2d 638 (Tex.1986); Johnson v. Fourth Court of Appeals, 700 S.W.2d 916 (Tex.......
-
CHAPTER 4 - 4-4 Work Product
...204 (Tex. 1993))).[131] Nat'l Tank Co. v. Brotherton, 851 S.W.2d 193, 204 (Tex. 1993) (quoting Stringer v. Eleventh Court of Appeals, 720 S.W.2d 801, 802 (Tex. 1986)).[132] Nat'l Tank Co. v. Brotherton, 851 S.W.2d 193, 204 (Tex. 1993); see Paxton v. City of Dall., No. 06-18-00095-CV, 2019 T......
-
Discovery
...is the mere fact of an accident occurring sufficient to clothe an investigation with privilege. Stringer v. Eleventh Court of Appeals , 720 S.W.2d 801 (Tex. 1986) disapproval on other grounds by National Tank Co. v. Brotherton , 851 S.W.2d 193 (Tex. 1993). As the Supreme Court held in Strin......
-
Discovery
...is the mere fact of an accident occurring sufficient to clothe an investigation with privilege. Stringer v. Eleventh Court of Appeals , 720 S.W.2d 801 (Tex. 1986) disapproval on other grounds by National Tank Co. v. Brotherton , 851 S.W.2d 193 (Tex. 1993). As the Supreme Court held in Strin......
-
Discovery
...is the mere fact of an accident occurring sufficient to clothe an investigation with privilege. Stringer v. Eleventh Court of Appeals , 720 S.W.2d 801 (Tex. 1986) disapproval on other grounds by National Tank Co. v. Brotherton , 851 S.W.2d 193 (Tex. 1993). As the Supreme Court held in Strin......