I hate watching horror movies. When not covering my eyes, I futilely plead with the characters to flee and escape death at the hands of the villain. As the viewer, I know that Freddy Krueger is hiding in the closet, that the shark is much bigger than the hero’s boat, and that eerie music foreshadows the villain’s attack. I read court opinions from a similar perspective, and when sneaky procedural issues aim to gut a party’s otherwise meritorious case, I tend to pull for that party.
I felt that familiar horror-film anxiety when I read United Scaffolding v. Levine, —S.W.3d— (Tex. June 30, 2017). The opinion’s introduction set the scene: “We reverse the court of appeals’ judgment and render a take-nothing judgment.” Then, I read that the apparent slip-and-fall case had been tried only on a general-negligence theory. And I began to cringe in looking at procedural decisions that would strike at the last minute, unravel years of hard work by the lawyers and judges involved, and cancel an injured man’s compensation.
