Hammond v. Rimmer's Estate
| Decision Date | 24 November 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 11-82-035-CV,11-82-035-CV |
| Citation | 643 S.W.2d 222 |
| Parties | Curtis Glenn HAMMOND, Appellant, v. The ESTATE OF Almeda Childress RIMMER, Deceased, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
John Weeks, Burke & Weeks Law Office, Inc., Abilene, for appellant.
Roger Glandon, Glandon, Erwin, Scarborough, Baker, Choate & Arnot, Davis Scarborough, Abilene, for appellee.
This is a personal injury case in which the jury answered "none" as the amount of damages due for future pain and mental anguish.
Plaintiff, Curtis Glenn Hammond, was riding his motorcycle on August 24, 1978. Defendant, Almeda Childress Rimmer, was driving her automobile. The vehicles collided, and plaintiff sued for damages in the alleged amounts of $5,000 past medical expenses, $1,000 future medical expenses, $31,600 past loss of earnings, $400,800 future loss of earnings, $1,572.74 property damage, $100,000 past pain and mental anguish, and $100,000 future pain and mental anguish. Following a trial by jury, judgment was rendered that plaintiff recover only $19,280.04. Plaintiff appeals, contending that the jury's answer of "none" as the amount due for future pain and mental anguish is against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence. We agree.
The verdict of the jury can be summarized as: (1) Defendant was negligent in her lookout and in failing to yield the right-of-way; (2) Plaintiff was negligent in driving his motorcycle at an excessive speed; (3) the negligence proximately causing the collision was attributable 80% to defendant and 20% to plaintiff; (4) the damages awarded by the jury were: Past pain and mental anguish: $5,000; Future pain and mental anguish: None; Past loss of earnings: $12,000; Future loss of earning capacity: $4,000; Medical and hospital treatment: $3,500.
The only point of error urged by plaintiff asserts: "The trial court committed reversible error in not granting appellant a new trial because the answer of 'none' as to damages for future pain and mental anguish is so against the great weight and preponderance of the testimony as to be manifestly wrong." In reviewing this point of error, we are guided by the rule formulated by Justice Keith's concurring opinion in Dupree v. Blackmon, 481 S.W.2d 216 at 221 (Tex.Civ.App.--Beaumont 1972, writ ref'd n.r.e.). That rule was quoted with approval by this court in Kraatz v. Faubion, 617 S.W.2d 277 at 279 (Tex.Civ.App.--Eastland 1981, no writ) as:
If the plaintiff has objective symptoms of injury, i.e., a cut or laceration of his body as in this instance, and there is readily available testimony which the defendant could offer to refute such fact, plaintiff's evidence cannot be disregarded by the jury when the defendant fails to refute it.
On the other hand, if plaintiff's complaints are subjective in nature, i.e., headaches, which the defendant may not readily dispute, then the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Krishnan v. Sepulveda
...Baylor Medical Plaza Services Corp. v. Kidd, 834 S.W.2d 69 (Tex.App.--Texarkana 1992, writ denied); Hammond v. Estate of Rimmer, 643 S.W.2d 222 (Tex.App.--Eastland 1982, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Dupree v. Blackmon, 481 S.W.2d 216 (Tex.Civ.App.--Beaumont 1972, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Hicks v. Ricardo......
-
Evans v. Rockdale Hosp., LLC.
...to award significant medical expenses and award nothing for any pain or other injury related detriment"); Hammond v. Rimmer's Estate , 643 S.W.2d 222, 224 (Tex. App. 1982) (jury's answer of "none" as to the amount of damages due for future pain and mental anguish was unsupported by evidence......
-
Jones v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
...found to be the "obvious" result of impairment of bowel and bladder sensation and function in Hammond v. Estate of Rimmer, 643 S.W.2d 222, 224 (Tex.App.--Eastland 1982, writ ref'd n.r.e.). There are a number of Texas cases in which some injury was found, but future mental anguish was not aw......
-
Lennon II Family Ltd. P'ship v. Gideo
...Christi 1987, no writ) (involving "personal injury suit following an automobile collision"); Hammond v. Rimmer's Estate, 643 S.W.2d 222, 223 (Tex. App.—Eastland 1982, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (involving a personal injury case in which plaintiff "was riding his motorcycle" and defendant was drivin......