 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Thatcher v. Yarborough11/21/2002
This is a premises liability case between a landlord and a tenant. The landlord, Russell G. Thatcher, is appealing an adverse jury verdict in favor of the tenant, Amanda Yarborough, for injuries she suffered to her back as a result of falling on the backdoor steps of her rent house. The jury awarded appellee $164,756.00 for her injuries.
In four points of error, appellant contends that chapter 92 of the property code bars appellee's common law personal injury claim and that the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to support the jury's finding on liability and damages. We affirm the judgment.
- The Evidence
The undisputed evidence established that from August 1995 until January 1997, appellee rented a house from appellant as her primary residence. Appellee testified that over a short period of time, the house deteriorated to the point where she could no longer open the front door. Apparently, the house's frame had shifted significantly and the front door was literally impossible to open. As a result, appellee was forced to use the backdoor of the house as her only means of entrance. According to her testimony, the steps leading up to the backdoor of the house were very unstable and dangerous to use. She testified that a board on the bottom of the steps was loose and that it shifted when she walked on it.
As proof of the condition of the steps, appellee introduced into evidence a videotape and four pictures which depicted the condition of the steps. The videotape also showed how the front door of the house could not be opened from either side.
After the jury viewed the videotape, appellee testified that she informed appellant's father, Russell S. Thatcher, that the steps needed immediate repairs. On the same day, appellant's father went to the house to take a look at the problem. In an attempt to repair what he called an "emergency," he placed two bricks under the steps for support. According to appellee, his "emergency" repairs actually made the steps worse, not better.
Almost three weeks after the "emergency" repairs, while appellee was walking down the steps, the board shifted beneath her and she fell on her back. Immediately, she began experiencing severe pain in her lower back. She testified that for several months she did nothing but lie on the couch because the pain in her back limited her mobility.
Ultimately, appellee was taken to the emergency room to have her back examined. Approximately a month later, she had surgery to fix what was diagnosed as a herniated disk.
In addition, appellee testified that she continues to experience severe pain in her back on a daily basis. She testified that she has experienced a significant loss of strength in her right leg, which ultimately caused her to fall several times since her surgery. She testified that a year after her fall, she twisted her back while shopping at a Kroger's grocery store. She also told the jury that she fell yet again after her right leg buckled underneath her while she was walking in her backyard.
During appellant's father's testimony, he corroborated the majority, if not all, of appellee's testimony. He stated that he was responsible for making repairs to the house where appellee fell. He also admitted that he was aware that the steps behind appellee's house were in need of repair. When asked to characterize the condition of the steps and also his actions, appellant's father testified as follows:
Q: And the steps, I believe your attorney may have called it an emergency repair. Would you characterize it as an emergency repair?
A: Well, definitely it would be an emergency, yes.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Texas Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|