 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
City of Dallas v. Webber6/26/1996
In two points of error, the City of Dallas asserts the trial court erred in awarding Webber damages for future impairment. In a crosspoint of error, Webber asserts the trial court erred in disregarding the jury's finding regarding damages for future medical expenses. We overrule the City of Dallas' points of error, sustain Webber's crosspoint of error, reverse the trial court's judgment, in part, and render.
BACKGROUND
Webber was struck from behind in a multiple car accident. The accident was caused by a Dallas police officer in an unmarked car. Webber was fifty years old at the time of the accident.
Webber suffered a serious back injury in the accident. Webber's back injury required medical treatment, including physical therapy. Eventually, Webber had surgery performed on her feet to remedy complications stemming from the accident.
Webber sued the City of Dallas seeking recovery for her injuries in the accident. The case was tried to a jury. The jury found that the police officer's negligence was the cause of the accident. The jury found that Webber suffered damages as follows: $8,000 in past medical expenses; $8,000 in future medical expenses; $10,000 in past physical pain and mental anguish; $8,000 in future physical pain and mental anguish; $5,000 in past physical impairment; and $13,000 in future physical impairment.
In response to the City's motion, the trial court disregarded the jury's finding regarding future medical expenses. In all other respects, the trial court entered judgement in accordance with the jury's findings.
LEGAL AND FACTUAL SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE JURY'S AWARD FOR FUTURE IMPAIRMENT
In its first and second points of error, the City asserts the evidence was legally and factually insufficient to support the jury's finding regarding future impairment. The gravamen of the City's argument is that medical testimony is necessary to support an award for future impairment, and Webber did not have expert testimony supporting her claim. Webber responds that expert testimony is not necessary, and if it is necessary, she presented it at trial.
A. Standard of Review
When reviewing no evidence (legal sufficiency) points, we consider only the evidence and inferences that tend to support the finding and disregard all evidence and inferences to the contrary. Responsive Terminal Sys., Inc. v. Boy Scouts of Am., 774 S.W.2d 666, 668 (Tex. 1989). We must consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict. See Havner v. E-Z Mart Stores, Inc., 825 S.W.2d 456, 458 (Tex. 1992). It is not within our power to second guess the fact finder unless only one inference can be drawn from the evidence. Havner, 825 S.W.2d at 461. If there is more than a scintilla of evidence to support the finding, the no evidence challenge fails. Dupree v. Texas Dep't of Protective Servs., 907 S.W.2d 81, 83 (Tex. App.--Dallas 1995, no writ); see Stafford v. Stafford, 726 S.W.2d 14, 16 (Tex. 1987).
In reviewing factual insufficiency points, we review all of the evidence in the record, including any evidence contrary to the verdict. Plas-Tex., Inc. v. U.S. Steel Corp., 772 S.W.2d 442, 445 (Tex. 1989); Dupree, 907 S.W.2d at 83. We will set aside a jury's finding on the basis of a factual insufficiency or great weight and preponderance point only if we determine that the evidence is factually insufficient or so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be manifestly unjust, shocking to the conscience, or clearly demonstrating bias. Ames v. Ames, 776 S.W.2d 154, 159 (Tex. 1989); Cropper v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., 754 S.W.2d 646, 652-53 (Tex. 1988)
Page 1 2 3 4 Texas Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|