 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Mayfield v. Ivey12/15/1999
Candace and Jeff Mayfield sued Jack L. Ivey, M.D., and Presbyterian Healthcare Center of North Texas d/b/a Presbyterian Hospital of Plano (Presbyterian). The trial court granted Presbyterian's motion to dismiss before trial. The Mayfields proceeded against Ivey on their claims of medical malpractice and actual and constructive fraud. The trial court granted Ivey's oral motion for directed verdict in part and submitted the negligence issue to the jury. Because the jury found Ivey was not negligent, the trial court rendered a take nothing judgment for the Mayfields. Following entry of the judgment, the trial court conducted a hearing on Ivey's Rule 13 motion for sanctions, granted the motion, and assessed a $1000 sanction against the Mayfields' counsel, James E. Girards. In two points of error, the Mayfields and Girards appeal the directed verdict and the imposition of sanctions. We reverse and remand the directed verdict and reverse the sanctions order and render judgment that Ivey take nothing.
DIRECTED VERDICT
In point of error one, the Mayfields complain that the trial court erred in granting a directed verdict against them on the fraud causes of action because they raised a fact issue as to each element of their actual and constructive fraud claims. Ivey responds the trial court properly granted his motion for directed verdict on the actual fraud cause of action because the Mayfields presented no evidence Ivey intended that the Mayfields act on his diagnosis. In addition, he urges that any error in granting a directed verdict on actual fraud was harmless because the jury finding of no negligence rendered any actual or constructive fraud theory moot under the facts of this case. Ivey further argues the Mayfields preserved nothing for review on their constructive fraud cause of action because, after the trial court denied Ivey's motion as to constructive fraud, the Mayfields requested neither a clarification of the ruling nor a jury question or instruction on that issue.
Actual Fraud
Standard of Review and Applicable Law
When reviewing a directed verdict, we consider all the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom the verdict was directed, disregarding all contrary evidence and inferences, and giving the losing party the benefit of all reasonable inferences. See Qantel Bus. Sys., Inc. v. Custom Controls Co., 761 S.W.2d 302, 303 (Tex. 1988); Davis v. Mathis, 846 S.W.2d 84, 86 (Tex. App._Dallas 1992, no writ). We determine whether any probative evidence raises a fact issue on the material questions. See Collora v. Navarro, 574 S.W.2d 65, 68 (Tex. 1978). A directed verdict is improper when the evidence raises a fact issue as to one or more fact propositions that must be established for the opponent to be entitled to judgment. See Edlund v. Bounds, 842 S.W.2d 719, 724 (Tex. App._Dallas 1992, writ denied).
To prove a cause of action for actual fraud, a party must show:
(1) a material representation was made; (2) the representation was false; (3) the speaker knew the representation was false when made or, alternatively, made the statement recklessly without any knowledge of its truth and as a positive assertion; (4) the speaker made the representation intending that the other party act on it; (5) the party acted in reliance upon the representation; and (6) the party was injured. See Jackson v. Julian, 694 S.W.2d 434, 436 (Tex. App._Dallas 1985, no writ); see also Trenholm v. Ratcliff, 646 S.W.2d 927, 929-30 (Tex. 1983). Intent may be shown by acts, representations, and subsequent conduct. See Ryan Mortg. Investors v. Berton Land Dev. Corp., 586 S.W.2d 887, 890 (Tex. Civ. App._Beaumont 1978, no writ
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.
|
|