 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
C & L Flooring Installations v. Cochell8/15/2001
Justice Rosenberg
In this slip and fall case, Susan Cochell sued C & L Flooring Installations (C&L;. The jury returned a verdict for Cochell, and in eight issues C&L;appeals claiming that (1) evidence was improperly admitted and excluded; (2) the trial court erred in overruling a challenge for cause of a juror; (3) the trial court erred in overruling its motion for mistrial; and (4) the evidence and the jury verdict did not support the award of past and future loss of earning capacity. We disagree and affirm.
PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND
While Cochell was working for Sysco Food Services, Sysco was remodeling its premises. C&L;was replacing the carpet in the kitchen. Cochell entered the kitchen while C&L;employees were spreading glue before installing the carpet. She fell as a result of the slippery glue. She brought suit against C&L;A HREF="#D*fn2" NAME="S*fn2">*fn2 for negligence for creating a dangerous condition and not taking proper precautions by warning or securing the area. She claimed injuries to her back, neck, shoulder, hips, legs, and feet. The case was tried to a jury that found in Cochell's favor and awarded damages. C&L;appeals.
ADMISSION AND EXCLUSION OF EVIDENCE
C&L;seeks to obtain reversal of the judgment claiming the trial court erred in its evidentiary rulings. A trial court has broad discretion over the admission or exclusion of evidence and in enforcing its judgments. Gee v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 765 S.W.2d 394, 396 (Tex. 1989) (evidentiary rulings); Young v. Young, 810 S.W.2d 850, 851 (Tex. App._Dallas 1991, writ denied) (enforcing judgments). A trial court abuses its discretion when it acts without reference to any guiding rules or principles of law, that is, if it acts arbitrarily or unreasonably. Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc., 701 S.W.2d 238, 241-42 (Tex. 1985). A mere error in judgment is not necessarily an abuse of a trial court's discretion; nor is it error if the reviewing court would have decided the matter differently under the same facts. Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145, 146 (Tex. 1989) (orig. proceeding). To obtain reversal of a judgment based upon error of the trial court in admission or exclusion of evidence, the following must be shown: (1) the trial court did in fact commit error; and (2) the error probably caused the rendition of an improper judgment. Tex. R. App. P. 44.1 (a)(1); see Gee, 765 S.W.2d at 396 (applying former appellate rule 81(b)).
The reviewing court will ordinarily not find reversible error for erroneous rulings on the exclusion or admission of evidence when the evidence in question is cumulative and not controlling on a material issue dispositive of the case. Tex. Dep't of Transp. v. Able, 35 S.W.3d 608, 617 (Tex. 2000); Gee, 765 S.W.2d at 396. This Court determines if the case turns on the evidence by reviewing the record. Gee, 765 S.W.2d at 396.
Discovery Abuse Order
In its first point of error, C&L;complains of error in the admission of evidence that had previously been excluded pursuant to the October 23, 1997 discovery abuse order. C&L;complains specifically that the trial court failed to exclude evidence of damages for lost earning capacity, lost wages, and medical expenses pursuant to the order. In the order, the trial court excluded any information and documents "not fully and complete provided in proper answers to [C&L;s] Interrogatories . . . Numbers 4, 13, and 14" or in response to "Requests for Production Numbers 5,11, 13, and 14 by September 18, 1997." Although C&L;claims " he record well establishes that the evidence complained of had not been supplemented by
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Texas Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|