Extended Search
Generic filters
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Search in excerpt
Search in comments
Filter by Custom Post Type
Extended Search
Generic filters
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Search in excerpt
Search in comments
Filter by Custom Post Type

Hager v. Romines – Case Brief Summary (Texas)

In Hager v. Romines, 913 S.W.2d 733 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 1995, no writ), the plaintiffs failed to present their own expert to controvert the defendant-applicator's testimony that he had met the standard of care of an aerial applicator. See id.

The court stated:

"Not only is flying an airplane not within the realm of experience of the ordinary, prudent person or juror, applying herbicide and pesticide aerially requires use of specialized equipment and techniques that are not familiar to the ordinary person." Id.