Beverly Enterprises, Inc. v. Gaines, 10-82-201-CV

• Decision Date: 19 May 1983
• Docket Number: No. 10-82-201-CV,10-82-201-CV
• Citation: 652 S.W.2d 600
• Parties: BEVERLY ENTERPRISES, INC. d/b/a Leisure Lodge, Appellant, v. Alma Marie GAINES, Appellee.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

Page 600

652 S.W.2d 600

BEVERLY ENTERPRISES, INC. d/b/a Leisure Lodge, Appellant, v. Alma Marie GAINES, Appellee.

No. 10-82-201-CV.

Court of Appeals of Texas,

Waco.

May 19, 1983.

Rehearing Denied June 16, 1983.

Robert J. Hanley, Waco, for appellant.

George Shaffer, Waco, for appellee.

Before McDONALD, C.J., and HALL and THOMAS, JJ.

OPINION

McDONALD, Chief Justice.

This is an appeal by Defendant-employer Beverly Enterprises, Inc., from $67,376.58 judgment against it in favor of Plaintiff-employee Alma Gaines.

Plaintiff sued for personal injuries resulting from Defendant's negligence in creating hazardous workplace conditions. Plaintiff alleged Defendant placed a stepladder and large metal laundry bins in the entrance area to Plaintiff's workplace, causing Plaintiff to collide with and fall over the ladder and to suffer back injuries. Plaintiff proceeded under a negligence theory because the Defendant did not have worker's compensation insurance.

Trial was to a jury which found:

1) Defendant's placing and storage of a stepladder and laundry hampers in the entrance area of Plaintiff's workplace was negligence.

2) Defendant's negligence was proximate cause of the occurrence which resulted in Plaintiff's injuries.

3) Plaintiff was entitled to damages as follows:

a) $5,250.30 for past medical expenses.

b) $15,000.00 for past present and future physical pain and mental anguish.

c) $9,000.00 for past loss of wage earning capacity.

d) $45,000.00 for lost future earnings.

The trial court rendered judgment on the verdict after crediting the Defendant with a stipulated offset and overruling Defendant's motion to disregard the finding on lost future earnings. The trial court later denied Defendant's motion for new trial based on insufficient evidence to support the lost future earnings award and on its excessiveness. Defendant appeals on 3 points.

Point 1 asserts the trial court erred in overruling the motion to disregard the finding on lost future earnings because there was no evidence to support the finding.

There is evidence Plaintiff was 50 years of age, and intended to work until she was 65. Specifically Defendant contends life expectancy is a necessary element in the proof of future lost earnings and there is no evidence on this element. However, proof of life expectancy is not required for the recovery of lost future earnings. City of Wichita Falls v. Geyer, (Tex.Civ.App.1943 Fort Worth) 170 S.W.2d 615, WOM; McIver v. Gloria, (Tex.Civ.App.1942 San Antonio) 163 S.W.2d 890, aff'd (Tex.1943) 169 S.W.2d 710. See also Chickasha Cotton Oil Co. v. Holloway, (Tex.Civ.App.Amarillo) 378 S.W.2d 695, NRE, Point 1 is overruled.

Point 2 asserts the evidence insufficient to sustain the lost future earnings finding. All evidence is considered in reviewing insufficient evidence points. In re King's Estate, 150 Tex. 662, 244 S.W.2d 660.

Plaintiff is 50 years of age and intended to work until age 65.

There is evidence Plaintiff has a tenth grade education; that her work experience in the last ten years is in the areas of domestic work and commercial cooking; that her average weekly income was $230 prior to the occurrence; and that she earned this wage by working 2 jobs in a 75-hour work week. Plaintiff was...