Figure World, Inc. v. Farley
| Decision Date | 10 October 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 14049,14049 |
| Citation | 680 S.W.2d 33 |
| Parties | FIGURE WORLD, INC., et al., Appellants, v. Lois FARLEY, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Melvin Krenek, Beckmann, Krenek, Olson & Quirk, San Antonio, for appellants.
Vincent J. Scanio, Jr., Scanio & Scanio, Anthony W. Tomblin, San Marcos, for appellee.
Before SHANNON, EARL W. SMITH and GAMMAGE, JJ.
Figure World, Inc. and Figure World of San Antonio, Inc. appeal the trial court's judgment awarding damages to Lois Farley for negligence and illegal eavesdropping. We will affirm in part and reverse and render in part.
Early in 1981 Lois Farley sought to acquire a membership in Figure World. Figure World is a chain of women's exercise and health salons. During her first few visits to defendant's New Braunfels salon she was given a guided tour of the facilities and introductory instructions about the use of the exercise equipment. In February, 1981, after only a few visits to Figure World, Farley fell from a jogging treadmill and fractured her arm. The jury found that the fall was proximately caused by the negligence of Figure World's employees. Specifically, the jury found that the fall was caused by a Figure World employee shouting "suck in that stomach" to Farley while she was attempting to master the jogging treadmill.
Farley filed suit and during the course of discovery it was revealed that Figure World used, at least occasionally, electronic listening devices (hidden microphones) in its "closing rooms" or sales conference offices. Farley then amended her petition to allege a violation of Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 9019 § 2 (Supp.1984), which provides a civil remedy for nonconsensual interception of communications. Farley contends she was the victim of such illegal eavesdropping during the course of her sales meetings with Figure World's employees.
Trial was had to a jury in Comal County on both the negligence cause of action and the statutory cause of action. Farley prevailed on both grounds of recovery. Figure World now brings eleven points of error to this Court.
Art. 9019 Claim
Figure World's first six points of error assert that Farley failed to establish a violation of art. 9019. They assert that there is no evidence of any of the requisite elements, or, alternatively, there is insufficient evidence to support each of the elements.
We hold that Farley failed to prove she had been the victim of any activity prohibited by art. 9019. The evidence introduced in the trial court proved only that the appellant had the capacity to intercept conversations in the sales offices. There was no testimony or other evidence that the eavesdropping devices were ever used while Farley was in one of the sales offices. While the practice of "bugging" offices has been deemed sufficiently reprehensible by the Legislature to be prohibited, appellee has failed to prove a violation under even the most liberal interpretation of the statute. For this reason we need not construe art. 9019. We reverse that portion of the trial court's judgment that is based upon the statutory cause of action, and render judgment denying Farley any relief on this portion of her suit.
Appellant's remaining points of error contend that none of the elements of the negligence ground of recovery is supported by the evidence. We affirm this portion of the judgment.
Figure World's seventh and eighth points of error contend that there is no evidence or insufficient evidence that anyone shouted at Farley. In reviewing legal sufficiency points on appeal we must consider only the evidence that tends to support the jury's findings, in its most favorable light, and disregard all evidence leading to a contrary conclusion. Burk Royalty Co. v. Walls, 616 S.W.2d 911 (Tex.1981). In reviewing a factual sufficiency point we are to consider all of the evidence adduced at trial and reverse and remand only if the evidence supporting the verdict is so weak that the verdict and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brownsville Nav. Dist. v. Izaguirre
...of a defendant's employee which establishes a standard of care can be used to create a legal duty. Figure World, Inc. v. Farley, 680 S.W.2d 33, 36 (Tex.App.--Austin 1984, writ ref'd n.r.e.). At trial, the deputy director of the Port of Brownsville (an employee of BND) testified that althoug......
-
Chambers v. US, C.A. No. H-83-2090.
...care arises, and the plaintiff need not introduce evidence of the pertinent standard of care. Figure World, Inc. v. Farley, 680 S.W.2d 33 (Tex.App. — Austin 1984, writ ref. n.r.e.) 14. Whether a duty exists under the facts and circumstances of a particular case is a question of law. J.R. Be......
-
Gulf States Utilities Co. v. Dryden
...surrounding the event, and the jury is to be allowed broad latitude in making that determination. Figure World, Inc. v. Farley, 680 S.W.2d 33 (Tex.App.--Austin 1984, writ ref'd n.r.e.). The evidence on the issue of proximate cause is sufficient. Point of error number two is GSU's next point......
-
E-Z Mart Stores, Inc. v. Havner
...latitude to infer proximate cause from the evidence and the circumstances surrounding the evidence. Figure World, Inc. v. Farley, 680 S.W.2d 33 (Tex.App.--Austin 1984, writ ref'd n.r.e.). The rule against pyramiding inferences does not forbid inferences that may arise from facts established......
-
Legal Aspects of Health and Fitness Clubs: a Healthy and Dangerous Industry
...of the allegations in the original complaint which provide a helpful checklist of negligence theories. 27. Figure World, Inc. v. Farley, 680 S.W.2d 33, 35-36 (Tex.App. 1984). 28. See, e.g., City of Longmont v. Swearingen, 81 Colo. 246, 254 P. 1000 (1927)(affirming jury verdict for plaintiff......