 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Moore v. Novark9/28/1995
al that the exhibit was offered to negate Novark's entitlement to lost wages, but at trial their counsel argued that the exhibit "shows what type of individual we are dealing with." The reasons presented to the appellate court for review must coincide with the reasons presented to the trial court for admitting or excluding evidence. Rhodes v. Batilla, 848 S.W.2d 833, 847 (Tex. App. -- Houston [14th Dist.] 1993, writ denied). We therefore reject the deputies' complaint as to the exclusion of DX-3.
The trial court properly sustained Novark's hearsay objection to DX-8, an unauthenticated record from Novark's previous employer. See TEX. R. CIV. EVID. 902(10). Moreover, the fact that Novark was terminated by Harris County was referred to several times during trial, clearly eliminating any harm from the exclusion of DX-8.
The deputies contend that the incident reported in DX-10 led to Novark's termination from the Willis Police Department. McWalters' statement, however, does not identify the two officers who beat him. In any event, we are unable to review the deputies' complaint as to the exclusion of this statement because they failed to identify where in the record this exhibit was offered and objection was made. See TEX. R. APP. P. 74(d). We find only that the trial court permitted the exhibit to be included in the defendants' bill of exceptions without explanation. The deputies waived any error in the exclusion of DX-10. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52(a),(b).
We overrule the deputies' thirteenth point of error.
Damages, Attorney's Fees, and Interest
In their points of error ten, eleven, and twelve, and the deputies attack the sufficiency of the evidence establishing that Novark lost wages and employment benefits as a result of their actions. The jury found in Question No. Five, which was conditioned on an affirmative finding on any of the causes of action submitted, that Novark was entitled to $60,000 in damages for "loss of pay" and $10,000 for "loss of employment benefits."
The deputies argue that because this is not a wrongful discharge case, no damages stem from Novark's loss of employment with Precinct 4. The deputies did not object, however, to the submission of lost wages and benefits as elements of damages. They also did not request that separate damages questions be submitted as to each of Novark's claims. Because they did not object, the deputies waived any argument that the damages elements did not relate to the asserted grounds of recovery. TEX. R. CIV. P. 274; See Birchfield v. Texarkana Memorial Hosp., 747 S.W.2d 361, 368 (Tex. 1987); Wilgus v. Bond, 730 S.W.2d 670, 672 (Tex. 1987).
To recover damages, a plaintiff must produce evidence from which the jury may reasonably infer that the damages sued for resulted from the conduct of the defendants. McKnight v. Hill & Hill Exterminators, Inc., 689 S.W.2d 206, 209 (Tex. 1985). Our review of the evidence supporting the jury's finding that the deputies' actions caused Novark's damages reveals the following: Novark testified that his termination following the deputies' allegations, along with the newspaper and television reports, caused him to lose wages; he stated that he tried unsuccessfully to find a job through two different employment agencies and made twelve to fifteen applications for jobs; he explained that he was always rejected for these jobs and was told that he would not be hired because of the allegations leading to the termination of his employment with Constable Moore's office; the only employment in law enforcement Novark was able to obtain were unpaid reserve positions undertaken to maintain his commission; Novark testified as to the amount of salary and benef
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Texas Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|