Photo of James Battle

James Battle

James chose to pursue a career as an attorney after working as a legal assistant and paralegal in mass torts and multi-district litigation. His experience in fast-paced environments, handling ESI and discovery, and participating in deposition and trial teams fueled his desire to attend law school himself.

As a law student, James gained valuable experience as a student attorney in the Veterans Legal Clinic. Working with veterans and obtaining favorable outcomes on their behalf deepened his appreciation for the practical aspects of law and the importance of effective client counseling. His pre-law work experience as a visiting English teacher in France also emphasized the importance of effective communication, a skill he applies daily in his legal practice.

James chose to focus his practice on Mass Tort and Product Liability out of a passion for working with expert witnesses, developing case strategies, and seeing cases through to the end.

As a summer associate at Husch Blackwell, he gained experience drafting a fact witness deposition outline, participating in an accident site investigation, and contributing to various litigation and real estate matters.

Clients can expect James to be diligent, attentive to their business needs, and adept at solving complex legal problems. Known for his strong communication skills and thorough approach, James is committed to helping clients achieve their goals while navigating intricate legal landscapes.

Contact:Read more about James Battle
T

The Texas Supreme Court’s recent decision in Werner Enterprises, Inc. v. Blake (No. 23-0493) clarifies proximate causation in personal injury cases ensuring an appropriate bar for proving the causation element of a negligence claim. The Court reversed a nearly $90 million jury verdict in favor of the plaintiffs, hinged on a holding that the substantial factor element of proximate causation was not met in a deadly collision where a vehicle carrying the plaintiffs lost control on an icy road, crossed a wide median into oncoming traffic, and collided with an 18-wheeler operated negligently by the commercial truck driver. “Proximate cause is not established merely by proof that the injury would not have happened if not for the defendant’s negligence,” but rather also requires “proof that the defendant’s negligence was a substantial factor in causing the injury.”  Werner Enterprises, Inc. v. Blake No. 23-0493, 2025 WL 2239275, at *1 (Tex. June 27, 2025).

In February 2025, the United States Environmental Protection Agency announced it will delay the addition of nine per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (“PFAS”) to its Toxics Release Inventory Report for the 2025 reporting year. “PFAS” is a term used to describe a diverse group of chemicals contained in many consumer products and industrial processes. The EPA’s announcement followed President Trump’s January 2025 memorandum “Regulatory Freeze Pending Review” which, among other things, requested a 60-day postponement “to the effective date memorandum for any rules that have been published in the Federal Register, or any rules that have been issued in any manner but have not taken effect, so that the administration may review any questions of fact, law, and policy that the rules may raise.” Accordingly, impacted industries now have additional time to prepare for new PFAS reporting requirements under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (“EPCRA”) and the Pollution Prevention Act (“PPA”) following the addition of nine PFAS chemicals to the Toxics Release Inventory (“TRI”).