The right to have a jury of fellow citizens decide disputes between private parties is one of the foundational principles of American civil justice. When someone is seriously injured because of another person's or company's negligence, a jury trial is often the only mechanism that can fully account for the human dimensions of that harm — the pain, the permanent disability, the loss of income, the disrupted family life — in a way that a settlement negotiated under financial pressure cannot. More about our Car Accident Attorney San Antonio here.
In Texas, however, the path to a jury trial has become significantly more complex and more expensive for victims of serious accidents. Changes in state law over the past two decades have placed legal and financial barriers between injured Texans and the courthouse, creating a system that in some categories of cases effectively denies meaningful access to civil justice for the people who need it most. Understanding those changes — and why they matter — is important for any Texan who has been injured by another's negligence.
Jury trials have historically functioned as a check on corporate and individual misconduct. When companies know that a jury of ordinary citizens will hear the full story of how their decisions caused someone's injury or death, they have a concrete incentive to prioritize safety over profit. Legislative changes that restrict access to juries or cap what juries can award weaken that incentive — and the burden of the resulting harm shifts from the negligent party to the injured victim, their family, and in many cases the public.
Texas law caps non-economic damages — compensation for pain and suffering, permanent disability, loss of enjoyment of life, and wrongful death — at $250,000 in medical malpractice cases. The practical effect of that cap is severe. When a patient loses a limb, is left unable to walk, or dies because of a healthcare provider's negligence, the maximum a jury can award for those human losses is fixed regardless of how devastating the outcome. Because medical malpractice cases also require expensive expert witnesses and face significant procedural hurdles before a case can even be filed, many Texas attorneys cannot afford to take these cases even when the negligence is clear and the harm is catastrophic. Victims who cannot find representation are left without recourse, and the cost of their lifetime care often falls on their families or on public assistance programs rather than on the providers whose negligence caused the harm.
Changes to Texas's collateral source rule have created outcomes that most people would consider deeply inequitable. Under modified rules, at-fault parties — including drunk drivers — can in some circumstances benefit from the fact that an injured victim had health insurance that paid a portion of their medical bills. The victim paid premiums for that insurance coverage, and the responsible party's liability is reduced accordingly, effectively giving the wrongdoer a financial benefit from the victim's own prudent decision to maintain coverage. That outcome is not how most Texans would expect the system to work, and it illustrates how legal reforms can shift the balance against injured parties in ways that are not visible until someone is actually harmed.
Texas legal reforms have expanded the ability of defendants to shift responsibility to parties who are bankrupt, immune from lawsuit, or otherwise unable to satisfy a judgment. When fault is allocated to a party from whom the injured victim cannot actually collect, the practical effect is that the victim recovers less even when a jury finds that multiple parties caused the harm. The catastrophically injured person still needs medical care, still cannot work, and still faces the full consequences of what happened — but their legal recovery is diminished by a legal architecture that prioritizes limiting defendants' exposure over making victims whole.
Changes in Texas products liability law have also made it more difficult to hold foreign manufacturers accountable when their products injure or kill Americans. Companies that design and sell dangerous products in the United States markets but maintain limited domestic presence can use jurisdictional and procedural defenses to escape the reach of Texas courts. When a defective product causes a serious injury to one of our citizens and the manufacturer cannot be held accountable in Texas, the cost of that injury again falls on the victim and, ultimately, on taxpayers rather than on the company that profited from selling the dangerous product in American markets.
The civil jury system is not just a mechanism for compensating individual victims — it is a structural safeguard that creates accountability throughout the economy. When corporations and individuals know that a jury of ordinary citizens has the authority to hear the full facts of what they did and award damages that reflect real human harm, they have a meaningful reason to invest in safety, training, and responsible conduct. When that accountability is weakened through damage caps, procedural barriers, and liability shifts, the incentive structure changes in ways that ultimately harm everyone.
Personal injury attorneys who take these cases to trial serve a function beyond representing individual clients — they participate in a system of accountability that protects consumers and the public. Carabin Shaw has spent decades fighting for injured Texans in courts across the state, and we believe that access to civil justice — including the right to a jury trial — must be preserved for every person who has been harmed by another's negligence.
If you or a loved one has been seriously injured, contact our San Antonio personal injury lawyers today for a free consultation. We will evaluate your case honestly and fight for the full compensation the law allows.