 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Louisiana Pacific Corporation v. Gill3/23/2000
Louisiana-Pacific Corporation appeals from a post-answer default judgment in an exemplary damage wrongful death case against the decedent's subscriber-employer brought by Neoma Gill, individually and as representative of the estate of Benjamin Gill. It presents the following three issues: (1) Was there legally or factually sufficient evidence of gross negligence?; (2) Did the trial court err in failing to set aside the post-answer default judgment?; and (3) Are the exemplary damages awarded in the judgment excessive under statutory, common-law or constitutional standards?
We reverse and remand because the trial court abused its discretion by not granting Louisiana Pacific's motion to set aside the default judgment.
In its second issue, Louisiana Pacific urges that the trial court erred in failing to set aside the post-answer default judgment because uncontroverted proof that it never received notice of the docket call or trial setting entitles it to a new trial as a matter of due process, civil procedure, or equitable discretion.
A motion for new trial is addressed to the trial court's discretion and the court's ruling will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of a showing of an abuse of discretion. See Cliff v. Huggins, 724 S.W.2d 778 (Tex. 1987). However, it is not an unbridled discretion for trial courts to decide cases as they might deem proper, without reference to any guiding rule or principle. Id. at 779.
The guiding rule or principle that a trial court is to follow in determining whether to grant a motion for a new trial following a default judgment is found in Craddock v. Sunshine Bus Lines, Inc., 134 Tex. 388, 133 S.W.2d 124 (1939). In that case the court held that a "default judgment should be set aside and a new trial ordered in any case in which the failure of the defendant to answer before judgment was not intentional, or the result of conscious indifference on his part, but was due to a mistake or accident; provided the motion for a new trial sets up a meritorious defense and is filed at a time when the granting thereof will occasion no delay or otherwise work an injury to the plaintiff." Id. at 126; Cliff, 724 S.W.2d at 779.
An affidavit from the District Court's Coordinator showed that a docket call notice and trial setting notice were properly addressed and sent to counsel for Louisiana Pacific, while the docket call notice was also sent to a partner in his firm. The affidavit indicated that the mail was not returned. Counsel for Louisiana Pacific testified that he had not received either notice, while his partner denied receiving a docket call notice. No further evidence of actual delivery or receipt was presented.
Given this record, defense counsel's failure to appear at trial was not intentional or the result of conscious indifference. Cliff, 724 S.W.2d at 779. It is sufficient that the movant's motion and affidavits set forth facts that, if true, would negate intentional or consciously indifferent conduct. Id. The Craddock requirements have been met in this case. Id. Consequently, we hold that the trial court abused its discretion by not granting Louisiana Pacific's motion for new trial.
The trial court filed no findings of fact and conclusions of law. The appellee urges that the trial court did not abuse its discretion because it could have chosen not to believe the testimony of the appellant's counsel that notice had not been received. Were we to agree with the appellee, our decision would be much the same as the court of appeals' opinion that was reversed in Cliff. See Cliff v. Huggins, 696 S.W.2d. 175 (Tex. App.-- San Antonio 1985), rev'd, 724 S.W.2d 778 (Tex. 1987). We sustain Louisia
Page 1 2 3 Texas Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|