 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Ford Motor Company v. Ozuna11/30/1999
Opinion by:Alma L. López, Justice
AFFIRMED AS REFORMED
The Ozunas sought recovery for property damages to their home caused by a fire. Both sides appeal the judgment, raising issues concerning unauthenticated documentary evidence, settlement credits, joint and several liability, and attorney's fees. We reform and affirm the judgment as reformed.
Factual and Procedural Background
In 1992, the Ozunas purchased a 1991 Ford F-150 pickup truck from Payne Mitsubishi, a dealership in Weslaco, Texas. Four years later, on October 26, 1996, Mr. Ozuna used the vehicle to take his wife to a doctor's appointment. They returned to their home at noon. Ozuna parked the truck in the garage and they went inside their home. Later, the light bulb in the kitchen ceiling fixture exploded. Shortly after Ozuna replaced it, the new bulb exploded. He went outside and saw a fire coming from his garage. He tried to extinguish the fire with a garden hose until the fire department arrived and put it out. Damage to the truck, the house and its contents was extensive. The cause of the fire focused on a defective ignition switch in the truck's steering column.
At trial, a jury found Ford liable to the Ozunas under theories of design defect, manufacturing defect, negligence, and "knowing" and "intentional" violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (the DTPA) based on "unconscionable" conduct. The jury awarded Antonio and Petra Ozuna $3,500 each for past mental anguish and $3,500 each for future mental anguish. They also awarded Antonio $24,500 for property damage sustained to the truck, his house, and its contents, and $3,000 in lost wages, and Petra Ozuna $27,000 for property damages. The jury awarded $3,500 each for DTPA damages of "knowing" conduct and $13,500 each for "intentional" conduct. The jury also found that the fire damages were caused by malice on Ford's part and awarded the Ozunas $1,500 each in exemplary damages. The court entered a judgment in these amounts jointly and severally against Ford and Payne-Mitsubishi. All parties appealed and presented refreshingly candid and well-crafted arguments.
The Knowing and Intentional Evidence
In its first issue, Ford asserts error in the trial court's decision to admit a number of documents without authentication, or alternatively, without proof of admissibility under any exception to the hearsay rule. Because of this error, Ford claims that the jury awarded additional DTPA statutory damages and mental anguish damages. Ford asks that the damages awarded in these categories and the corresponding pre-judgment interest be reduced from $100,637.50 to $58,587.50.
We review decisions to admit or exclude evidence under an abuse of discretion standard. An appellate court should reverse only if the error was reasonably calculated to cause, and probably did cause, the rendition of an improper judgment. See Church & Dwight Co., Inc. v. Huey, 961 S.W.2d 560, 570 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1997, pet. denied).
A. Authentication.
Authentication as a condition precedent to admissibility is established by evidence that the matter in question is what its proponent claims. Tex. R. Civ. Evid. 901(a) . This evidence can consist of testimony by a witness that the matter is what it claims to be. Tex. R. Civ. Evid. 901(b)(1). A document can be considered authentic if a sponsoring witness vouches for its authenticity. In re G.F.O., 874 S.W.2d 729, 731 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, no writ). Mere production of a document does not necessarily render a document admissible. See Miles v. Ford Motor Co., 922 S.W.2d 572, 597 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 1996), modified on other
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Texas Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|