 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Perez v. Perez8/31/2005
Lacey Perez appeals a judgment non obstante veredicto on punitive damages for gross negligence in an automobile accident. On a rainy day in August 2002, Gustavo A. Perez drove his employer's delivery truck into the back of Lacey Perez's Honda Accord. Gustavo drove away from the accident, with Lacey in pursuit for as far as one-half mile. Gustavo pulled over and admitted responsibility for the accident. The plaintiff contends that by leaving the scene the defendant exhibited malice that supports the jury's $20,000 punitive damage award. The defendant contends there is no evidence to support a punitive damage award because there is no evidence that the harm to the plaintiff resulted from the defendant leaving the scene of the accident. We hold the trial court correctly concluded that no clear and convincing evidence supports a finding that Lacey Perez was harmed by the malice or grossly negligent conduct of Gustavo A. Perez. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.
The trial court may disregard a jury finding on a question that has no support in the evidence, and may enter a judgment notwithstanding the verdict if a directed verdict would have been proper. Tex. R. Civ. P. 301. To affirm a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, we must determine that no evidence supports the jury's finding. Mancorp, Inc. v. Culpepper, 802 S.W.2d 226, 227 (Tex. 1990). In reviewing the legal sufficiency of the evidentiary support for a finding that must be proved by clear and convincing evidence, we regard all the evidence in the light most favorable to the finding to determine whether a reasonable trier of fact could have formed a firm belief or conviction that the finding was true. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co. v. Garza, 164 S.W.3d 607, 627 (Tex. 2004); see Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 41.001(2) (Vernon Supp. 2005). We assume the jury resolved disputed facts in favor of its finding if a reasonable factfinder could do so, and disregard all evidence that a reasonable factfinder could have disbelieved or found to be incredible. In the Interest of J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256, 266 (Tex. 2002). The evidence is legally insufficient if "no reasonable factfinder could form a firm belief or conviction that the matter that must be proven is true. . . ." Id.
The jury found that the harm to Lacey Perez resulted from malice, as that term was statutorily defined in 2002. See Act of April 11, 1995, 74th Leg., RS., ch. 19, § 1, 1995 Tex. Gen. Laws 108, 109 (amended 2003) (current version at Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 41.001 (Vernon Supp. 2005)). The motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict argued the accident occurred from the wet and rainy weather conditions, not as a result of the defendant's malicious or grossly negligent conduct, and the plaintiff did not suffer any damages as a result of the defendant temporarily fleeing the scene. The plaintiff did not allege that the defendant's conduct leading up to the collision constituted malice or gross negligence. Lacey Perez's petition limited her claim for exemplary or punitive damages to Gustavo Perez's post-accident conduct, namely, that the defendant "attempted to flee the collision scene in an effort to avoid identification and responsibility for the incident in question." Therefore, we focus on the evidence relating to the defendant's post-accident conduct to determine if there is adequate support for the jury's finding.
The defendant admitted he left the scene of the accident. The plaintiff contends punitive damages are justified because the defendant violated a criminal statute. See Tex. Transp. Code Ann. §§ 550.021-.023 (Vernon 1999). She concedes that the unlawfulness of an act will not by itself justify the imposition of exemplary or puni
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.
|
|