666 S.W.2d 362 (Tex.App. - Houston [14 Dist.] 1984), C14-82-677, State v. Weller

Docket Nº:C14-82-677CV.
Citation:666 S.W.2d 362
Party Name:STATE of Texas, Appellant, v. Coral Brown WELLER, Appellee.
Case Date:February 16, 1984
Court:Court of Appeals of Texas

Page 362

666 S.W.2d 362 (Tex.App. —Houston [14 Dist.] 1984)

STATE of Texas, Appellant,


Coral Brown WELLER, Appellee.

No. C14-82-677CV.

Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourteenth District, Houston

February 16, 1984

Rehearing Denied March 22, 1984.

Mark White, Atty. Gen., Joe D. Jarrard, Jr., Carla M. Crisford, Asst. Attys. Gen., Austin, for appellant.

John O'Quinn, Mike Kerensky, John O'Quinn & Associates, Houston, for appellee.


JUNELL, Justice.

This appeal is from a judgment awarding Coral Brown Weller, appellee, a $105,903.97 recovery from the State of Texas. That award was based upon injuries she received when a poorly constructed angle iron device attached to a highway overpass was struck by a Vulcraft Carrier Corporation truck. The device flew off and struck appellee in the face. At that time Mrs. Weller was a passenger in a car following the Vulcraft truck, the car being driven by her now-deceased husband (Harvill B. Weller).

Appellee and Mr. Weller sued Vulcraft Corporation, its truck driver (the Vulcraft defendants) and the Texas Highway Department. During trial, Mrs. Weller settled her claim against the Vulcraft defendants for $100,000. In answering the special issues, the jury found the total amount of damages to be $261,000. The trial court subtracted the Weller-Vulcraft $100,000 settlement from that amount (leaving $161,000); it then further reduced that amount to $100,000 [the maximum liability of the state under the Texas Tort Claims Act, TEX.REV.CIV.STAT.ANN. art. 6252-19, § 3 (Vernon 1982).]

The trial court then added pre-judgment interest of $5,903.97 on the past medical expenses only, thus increasing the total amount of the judgment to $105,903.97.

Appellant, the State of Texas, originally presented eight points of error. Appellee raised one cross point. However, appellant subsequently waived seven of its points of error. We now consider appellant's remaining point, point of error number six: whether the trial court erred in awarding appellee pre-judgment interest for the reason that, as a matter of law, a plaintiff cannot recover such interest on damages for personal injuries under the Texas Tort Claims Act.

Appellee's sole cross point urges that the trial court erred in not granting pre-judgment interest on the general damages as well as on the past medical expense. We will consider...

To continue reading