by JoAnn Storey, JoAnn Storey, P.C.
It is improper for the trial court to conduct a conflicts-of-law analysis regarding the application of Chapter 33’s provisions governing proportionate responsibility in a tort case. See Smith v. Cudd Pressure Control Inc., 126 S.W.3d 106, 111 (Tex.App.─Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, pet. denied). The court reasoned that such an analysis is improper “because Chapter 33 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code expressly applies to ‘any cause of action based on tort in which a defendant, settling person, or responsible third party is found responsible for a percentage of the harm for which relief is sought.’” Id.
