 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
General Motors Corporation v. Gayle6/6/1996
filed June 6, 1996.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
WRIT OF MANDAMUS
MAJORITY OPINION
General Motors Corporation ("GM"), seeks a writ of mandamus directing Judge J. Ray Gayle III, to vacate three orders (1) overruling GM's objection to proceeding to trial on the non-jury docket, (2) denying GM's motion for continuance, and (3) allowing the plaintiffs and their representatives to attend certain crash tests performed by GM's expert witnesses. We deny the petition for writ of mandamus.
Mandamus Standards
Mandamus issues only to correct a clear abuse of discretion when there is no adequate remedy by appeal. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839 (Tex. 1992). Such a restriction on mandamus is necessary to preserve orderly trial proceedings and prevent constant interruption of the trial process by appellate courts. Canadian Helicopters Ltd. v. Wittig, 876 S.W.2d 304, 305 (Tex. 1994). To show an abuse of discretion, the relator must establish that the trial court (a) could reasonably have reached only one decision in ruling on a fact issue or matter committed to the trial court's discretion, and failed to do so, or (b) failed to correctly determine what the law is or apply it to the facts. Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 840.
An appellate remedy is not inadequate merely because it may involve more expense or delay than obtaining an extraordinary writ. Id. at 842. In a discovery context, a party will not have an adequate remedy on appeal from an erroneous ruling of a trial court where the appellate court would not be able to cure the trial court's error, such as when the trial court orders disclosure of privileged information which will materially affect the rights of the aggrieved party. Id. at 843. An adequate remedy on appeal will also be lacking where the party's ability to present a viable claim or defense at trial is so vitiated or severely compromised by the trial court's discovery error that conducting trial would be a waste of judicial resources. Id. A remedy by appeal is also inadequate where the trial court disallows discovery, the missing discovery cannot be made part of the appellate record, and the reviewing court is thereby unable to evaluate the effect of the trial court's error from the record before it. Id. at 843-44.
Jury Trial and Continuance
This proceeding arises from a personal injury suit filed by the plaintiffs and real parties in interest, Manuel and Maria Delarosa, against GM. The Delarosas allege that a defective seat belt in Mr. Delarosa's 1983 GM truck unlatched in a 1988 traffic accident and caused or contributed to the severe injuries he suffered.
GM alleges that a co-defendant in the case demanded a jury in his answer, but, unbeknownst to GM, never paid a jury fee. The case was originally set for trial preferentially on July 12, 1993, which was a civil jury trial week for the 239th District Court according to the 1993 Brazoria County Court Schedule. Prior to that date, GM alleges that several communications took place between counsel for the parties and the trial judge reflecting a common understanding that the case would be tried to a jury. The trial date was thereafter reset several times, most recently on the "try or dismiss" docket on January 3, 1996. GM alleges that the court's notice of this trial setting did not indicate whether the case would be on the jury or non-jury docket for that date.
At the January 3 docket call, the Delarosas announced "ready" and GM moved for continuance due to outstanding discovery. The trial court denied the continuance and announced that, since no jury fee had been paid, a non-jury trial would begin on January 5. Th
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Texas Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|