 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Harris County v. Garza6/25/1998
Harris County, Texas, appeals from a judgment upon a jury verdict for appellees for money damages arising from an automobile accident involving a deputy constable and appellees. In two points of error, appellant contends (1) the trial court erred in entering judgment against appellant contrary to the jury's findings, and (2) there was no evidence to support the entry of judgment against appellant. As to the judgment against Harris County, we reverse and render judgment that appellees take nothing.
On September 28, 1992, at about 8:00 p.m., Harris County Deputy Constable Raymond Nieto (Nieto) received a call on his radio from Joe Reece, an off-duty deputy constable, reporting that there was a family disturbance in the area. Reece told Nieto that a distressed citizen came to Reece's door and told Reece that an irate male was wielding a knife at a citizen's residence. Reece informed Nieto that he needed Nieto to immediately back Reece up at the complainant's residence. Believing there was an emergency situation, Nieto turned on his overhead emergency lights and drove towards the reported location. Nieto stated he was going between 30 and 40 mph in a 30 mile per hour zone, and passed other cars who moved out of his way. Upon turning on Trecastle street, Nieto observed no traffic other than the appellees' car, driven by Hilda Garza. Nieto approached from the rear of Garza's car, observed the brakelights come on, and Garza appeared to be moving to the right to stop her vehicle. Believing Garza had seen him, Nieto started to pass Garza. Garza made a left-hand turn in front of Nieto onto another street, and Nieto struck the left front fender of Garza's car. Appellee Yvonne Silvestre stated she saw Nieto's emergency lights on about ten seconds before the collision.
In answer to the negligence question, the jury found Nieto and Garza negligent. The jury further found Garza 60% responsible and Nieto 40% responsible. In their answer to question three, the jury found Nieto failed to turn on his overhead lights in response to an emergency call, and keep them on throughout his route until the accident occurred. In their answer to question four, the jury found Nieto acted in good faith with regard to the accident.
Appellant moved for entry of judgment in its favor based on the jury verdict, and asked that it be held immune under the Tort Claims Act. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. ยง 101.021(1) (Vernon 1986). The trial court overruled appellant's motion for judgment on the verdict, and entered judgment for the appellees against Hilda Garza for 60% of the damages and against the appellant for 40% of the damages. Specifically, the judgment against Harris County was for: (1) $1,360.00 for Lori Silva, (2) $4,257.38 for Jose Garza, as next friend of Yvonne Silvestre, and (3) $880.00 for Yvonne Silvestre, individually. The trial court overruled appellant's motion to modify, correct, or reform the judgment in favor of Harris County, based on the jury's verdict.
In point of error one, appellant contends the trial court erred in granting judgment contrary to the verdict of the jury. Appellant argues the jury found that Nieto was acting in good faith, and he was entitled to official immunity. Because Nieto was immune from liability, Harris County was also immune under the doctrine of respondeat superior. We agree with appellant.
The fundamental rule that the judgment of the trial court must conform to the verdict necessarily implies that the court must consider the verdict as a whole. Teas v. Republic National Bank of Dallas, 460 S.W.2d 233, 240 (Tex. Civ. App. -- Dallas 1970, writ ref'd n.r.e.). The judge may not disregard answers to material issues, set aside findings
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.
|
|