 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Bailey v. Schaars12/14/1999
itionally argues in her first and second points of error that the trial court erred in rendering summary judgment on the issue of intent because intent cannot be readily controverted and minors in Texas are liable for their intentional torts. However, we need not address these points because we have already determined the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on the issue of Connor's intent.
Damages
In appellant's fourth point of error, she argues the trial court erred in granting summary judgment for Connor on the issue of damages. Connor, in his motion for summary judgment, argued that he was entitled to summary judgment because appellant had not produced any evidence of injury despite adequate time for discovery. However, this motion was filed in April of 1996, well before the Supreme Court amended rule 166a to permit no evidence summary judgments. Connor's burden was to conclusively establish appellant did not suffer injury, and this burden was not satisfied by showing appellant lacked evidence to support an element of her cause of action. See Wocher v. Johnson, 875 S.W.2d 470, 473 (Tex. App_Waco 1994, no writ); State v. Seventeen Thousand and No/100 Dollars U.S. Currency, 809 S.W.2d 637, 640 (Tex. App._Corpus Christi 1991, no writ); Christensen v. Sherwood Ins. Serv., 758 S.W.2d 801, 804 (Tex. App._Texarkana 1988, writ denied). Therefore, we sustain appellant's fourth point of error.
We reverse the trial court's judgment and remand for further proceedings.
JOHN OVARD, JUSTICE
Publish Tex. R. App. P. 47
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.
|
|