Bushell v. Dean
| Decision Date | 13 February 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. C-9522,C-9522 |
| Citation | 34 Tex.Sup.Ct.J. 339,803 S.W.2d 711 |
| Parties | 55 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 225 Bill BUSHELL and The Syndex Corporation, a Texas Corporation, Petitioners, v. Mary C. DEAN, Respondent |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
OPINION ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
Syndex's motion for rehearing is granted in part and overruled in part. This court's opinion and judgment of November 21, 1990, are withdrawn, and the following is substituted in their place.
Mary Dean brought this action against Bill Bushell and the Syndex Corporation, her former manager and employer, claiming assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and sexual harassment pursuant to Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 5221k, § 5.01 (1985). Dean obtained a favorable jury determination on each cause and the trial court rendered judgment awarding Dean $195,600 in actual and punitive damages and $123,000 in attorney's fees. The court of appeals reversed that part of the judgment awarding damages and attorney's fees for the sexual harassment claim and remanded that part of the cause for new trial. 781 S.W.2d 652. Because the court of appeals based this part of its judgment on unpreserved error, we reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and remand the cause to that court for further proceedings.
By three points of error to the court of appeals, Syndex attacked the trial court's admission of testimony by one of Dean's experts, Dr. Lucia Gilbert. Syndex asserted that the testimony was irrelevant, Tex.R.Civ.Evid. 402; that the probative value of the testimony was substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice, Tex.R.Civ.Evid. 403; and that the testimony was inadmissible character evidence. Tex.R.Civ.Evid. 404. The court of appeals sustained all three points of error.
Syndex did not preserve its objection to Dr. Gilbert's testimony at trial. On direct examination, Dr. Gilbert indicated that he was going to give a "working definition" of sexual harassment, including "general things that are true about a person who harasses." Syndex's counsel objected, stating I am objecting to the testimony of this expert witness as a whole to the extent that it goes to questions of profile of someone who harasses.... I think it is likely to create a great deal of prejudice and to confuse the jury and issues that they actually have to decide in this case, and that involves a mixture of law and fact.
The trial judge responded,
I [have] expressed a concern that at some point I did not think that the questions to the witness had...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dade v. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co.
... ... The outrageous conduct element of an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim was explained by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in Dean v. Ford Motor Credit Co., 885 F.2d 300, 306 (5th Cir.1993) (citing RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 46): ... Liability [for ... The Court found that most of Monarch's conduct was similar in degree to conduct in Bushell v. Dean, 781 S.W.2d 652 (Tex.App. — Austin [14th Dist.] 1989, no writ), conduct that failed to reach the level of outrageousness. Specifically, ... ...
-
Missouri Pacific Railroad Company v. Limmer, No. 14-02-00688-CV (TX 10/5/2004)
... ... Bushell v. Dean, 803 S.W.2d 711, 712 (Tex. 1991). Because Union Pacific did not assert in the trial court any preemption argument based on this particular ... ...
-
Diamond Shamrock Refining and Marketing Co. v. Mendez
... ... Walters, 699 S.W.2d 939 (Tex.App.--Beaumont 1985, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Bushell v. Dean, 781 S.W.2d 652, 657-58 (Tex.App.--Austin 1989), rev'd on other grounds, 803 S.W.2d 711 (Tex.1991); Service Lloyds Ins. Co. v. Greenhalgh, ... ...
-
Knoderer v. State Farm Lloyds
... ... Therefore, no complaint was preserved for our review based on this objection. See TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a)(2) ; Bushell v. Dean , 803 S.W.2d 711, 712 (Tex. 1991) (per curiam). Further, the Knoderers' objection and motion to exclude Rios' testimony asserted after the ... ...
-
Disability Discrimination
...S.W.2d 735, 742 (Tex. App.—Austin 1992, no writ); Bushell v. Dean , 781 S.W.2d 652, 657 (Tex. App.—Austin 1989), rev’d on other grounds , 803 S.W.2d 711 (Tex. 1991); accord Williams v. Merck & Co., Inc. , 381 Fed.Appx. 438, 440 n.3 (5th Cir. June 16, 2010) (citing cases); Gay v. Aramark Uni......
-
Texas commission on human rights act: procedures and remedies
...S.W.2d 190, 198 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1993); Bushell v. Dean , 781 S.W.2d 652, 657 (Tex. App.—Austin 1989), rev’d on other grounds , 803 S.W.2d 711 (Tex. 1991). See also Grant v. Lone Star Co. , 21 F.3d 649, 651-53 (5th Cir. 1994) (holding Title VII does not permit the imposition of lia......
-
Disability Discrimination
...S.W.2d 735, 742 (Tex. App.—Austin 1992, no writ); Bushell v. Dean, 781 S.W.2d 652, 657 (Tex. App.—Austin 1989), rev’d on other grounds, 803 S.W.2d 711 (Tex. 1991); accord Williams v. Merck & Co., Inc., 381 Fed.Appx. 438, 440 n.3 (5th Cir. June 16, 2010) (citing cases); Gay v. Aramark Unif. ......
-
Texas Commission on Human Rights Act: Procedures and Remedies
...S.W.2d 190, 198 (Tex. App.— Corpus Christi 1993); Bushell v. Dean, 781 S.W.2d 652, 657 (Tex. App.—Austin 1989), rev’d on other grounds, 803 S.W.2d 711 (Tex. 1991). See also Grant v. Lone Star Co., 21 F.3d 649, 651-53 (5th Cir. 1994) (holding Title VII does not permit the imposition of liabi......