Armellini Exp. Lines of Florida, Inc. v. Ansley

• Decision Date: 26 June 1980
• Docket Number: No. 1512,1512
• Citation: 605 S.W.2d 297
• Parties: ARMELLINI EXPRESS LINES OF FLORIDA, INC. et al., Appellants, v. MARILYN ANSLEY, Appellee.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

Page 297

605 S.W.2d 297

ARMELLINI EXPRESS LINES OF FLORIDA, INC. et al., Appellants, v. MARILYN ANSLEY, Appellee.

No. 1512.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, Corpus Christi.

June 26, 1980.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 29, 1980.

John H. Boswell, Sharon S. Stagg, Boswell, O'Toole, Davis & Pickering, Houston, for appellants.

Bert L. Huebner, Bay City, John M. O'Quinn, Riddle, Murphrey, O'Quinn & Cannon, Houston, for appellee.

OPINION

NYE, Chief Justice.

This is a personal injury case arising out of a vehicular collision. Marilyn Ansley (appellee herein) sued Armellini Express Lines of Florida, Inc., Armellini Express Lines, Inc., Armellini Express Line, Inc., (collectively Armellini herein), William Larry Duckett (driver), David C. Martin (relief driver), and Green Acres Farm for damages which resulted when the pickup truck she was driving collided with a semi-trailer truck owned by Armellini and driven by Larry Duckett. After a lengthy trial, the jury found a number of acts of negligence on the part of the Armellini truck driver (Duckett) which were the proximate cause of the occurrence in question. The jury acquitted Mrs. Ansley of contributory negligence. As a result of the jury findings, the trial court entered a judgment awarding Mrs. Ansley damages as found by the jury. The defendants appeal. ¹

The collision occurred sometime between 11:00 p. m. and 12:00 p. m. on March 27, 1977, on FM 149, a two-lane road, and near the entrance to Green Acres Farm which is located between the towns of Tomball and Pinehurst, Montgomery County, Texas. It was a dark, clear night with good weather conditions. The roadway was dry. No lights were present in the Green Acres Farm driveway or yard.

Green Acres is a nursery located on the west side of FM 149 and is connected to the roadway by a driveway. Immediately prior to the accident, Duckett, the driver of the Armellini "tractor/trailer rig," accompanied by Martin, his relief driver, were attempting to make a delivery to Green Acres Farm. Duckett, who originally had approached Green Acres Farm from the south on FM 149, passed the entrance to Green Acres Farm and reached the town of Magnolia before he realized his mistake. He then turned and traveled south on FM 149, again passing the entrance to Green Acres Farm, until he neared Decker Prairie located south of his destination. He again turned the truck around and proceeded north on FM 149 toward his destination. Duckett, who was driving in the northbound lane, stopped just beyond the entrance of the driveway of Green Acres Farm. He then proceeded to back the rig across the southbound lane into the driveway.

At the time of the collision, Duckett was making his second or third attempt to back the truck into the driveway. The truck was in a jack-knifed position with tractor unit remaining in the northbound lane, facing almost north and the trailer unit being angled in a southwesterly direction toward the driveway, blocking the southbound lane and the shoulder of FM 149. The plaintiff, Marilyn Ansley, was driving in the southbound lane of FM 149 and was approaching Green Acres Farm at the same time the truck was in the jack-knifed position across the road. Mrs. Ansley's pickup truck struck the Amellini trailer in the middle and went partially underneath the trailer unit pinning her inside the wreckage of her pickup truck for nearly an hour, all of which caused her severe injuries.

In response to special issues one and two, the jury found that the Armellini truck driver was negligent in the following respects which were the proximate cause of the collision in question:

a. "In failing to give an adequate warning to the Southbound traffic that his trailer was in the Southbound lane."

b. "In failing to warn Marilyn Ansley that her lane of travel was blocked after he saw her approaching."

c. "In failing to move out of Marilyn Ansley's lane of traffic after he saw her approaching."

d. "His look out."

e. "In backing across Marilyn Ansley's lane of traffic under the circumstances existing when he did so."

In response to the damage issues, the jury found the following amounts would compensate Mrs. Ansley for the damages she sustained as a result of the occurrence in question:

                $33,500  (S.I. #6)   medical expenses - past
                 60,000  (S.I. #7)   medical expenses - future
                 26,000  (S.I. #8)   loss of earning capacity -
                                     past
                273,000  (S.I. #8b)  loss of earning capacity -
                                     future
                 10,000  (S.I. #8c)  physical pain and mental
                                     anguish - past
                220,000  (S.I. #8d)  physical pain and mental
                                     anguish - future
                  1,000  (S.I. #8e)  loss of household services -
                                     past
                 22,000  (S.I. #8f)  loss of capacity to perform
                                     household tasks - future
                100,000  (S.I. #8g)  physical impairment - past
                200,000  (S.I. #8h)  physical impairment - future
                  6,000  (S.I. #8i)  disfigurement - past
                 88,000  (S.I. #8j)  disfigurement - future
                

The jury failed to find that Mrs. Ansley was negligent with respect to "her look out," the "(a)pplication of her brakes," or "(h)er speed until time of impact." In accordance with the answers to these special issues, the trial judge entered a judgment awarding Mrs. Ansley damages totally $1,039,500.00 against Armellini and Duckett, jointly and severally.

This is an appeal from the second jury trial of this case. On January 10, 1979, the trial judge, on his own motion granted a new trial after the first jury verdict had been received. Thereafter, Mrs. Ansley filed her second amended original petition and Armellini Express Lines, Inc. and Martin filed pleas of privilege. On March 21, 1979, after a hearing, the trial judge entered an order overruling the pleas of privilege. ² The cause then proceeded to a trial on the merits.

Although the issues on appeal are somewhat limited, we received a voluminous brief from the appellants, comprising some 138 pages and containing 116 points of error. Even a cursory examination of this brief reveals that the crux of appellants' complaints are obscured by numerous unfounded complaints which, in effect, would require this Court to re-try the entire case. A closer examination of the brief reveals that several of the points of error which are grouped together for purposes of argument and authority with a group of other points are either not briefed at all, or the extent of the briefing is limited to a few sentences of general conclusory statements and arguments unsupported by any authorities. The Rules of Civil Procedure, as well as our local rules, emphasize the policy that briefs should be brief and concise and that points of error should not be unnecessarily numerous. See Rule 418, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, and our local rules printed in the appendix to Continental Oil Co. v. Dobie, 552 S.W.2d 183 (Tex.Civ.App.-Corpus Christi 1977, writ ref'd n.r.e.). Although we could and probably should have required a complete rebriefing, we did request the appellants to file a summary of their points of error and arguments. Subsequently, appellants filed a lengthy summary brief, which contained almost 50 pages, which still did not indicate any of appellants' major contentions. During oral arguments, appellants argued only three main areas (with several sub-points) which they contend "clearly" warrant a reversal of this case. Their first major contention concerns the damages awarded by the jury which, appellants say, are not supported by any evidence, or, in any event, are so excessive as to require a remittitur. Related to the damages issue is appellants' second major complaint which is that the exclusionary instructions that they requested were erroneously omitted from the charge to the jury. Appellants' third major complaint concerns the form in which the contributory negligence questions were submitted to the jury and the trial court's failure to include their requested contributory negligence questions.

Since we did not require a rebriefing, we have carefully read the entire record and considered each and every point of error. However, in the interest of brevity, this opinion will consider only appellants' primary complaints in detail.

The trial court's charge contained one negligence special issue and one proximate cause special issue, each one containing five subparts inquiring whether certain acts of the Armellini truck driver (Duckett) constituted negligence and the proximate cause of the occurrence in question. In points of error 1 through 32, appellants complain, in essence, that there is "no evidence" or "insufficient evidence" to support the submission of any of the subparts of the negligence and/or the proximate cause issues to the jury. In addition, appellants contend that there is "no evidence," or "insufficient evidence" to support the answers to these special issues, and the answers to such issues are "against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence." In deciding appellants' "legal sufficiency" of the evidence points, we, of course, must review the evidence in its most favorable light to support the jury's findings and the trial court's judgment, considering only the evidence and inferences which support the factfinding and rejecting all contrary evidence and inferences. See Miller v. Riata Cadillac Company, 517 S.W.2d 773 (Tex.Sup.1974); Garza v. Alviar, 395 S.W.2d 821 (Tex.Sup.1965). In deciding appellants' "factual sufficiency" points, we review all of the evidence. See In Re King's Estate, 244 S.W.2d 660 (Tex.Sup.1951).

Mrs. Ansley testified, in substance, that as she crested a small hill going south, she saw headlights facing her in the opposite northbound lane. To her, the headlights appeared to be the headlights of an approaching vehicle. She sensed no danger and continued on, unaware that these headlights were those of the Armellini truck which was jack-knifed across her lane of traffic. Mrs. Ansley testified that she did not become aware...