Huber v. Ryan
| Decision Date | 09 December 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. C-652,C-652 |
| Citation | 627 S.W.2d 145 |
| Parties | William Barton HUBER, Petitioner, v. Alma RYAN, Respondent. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Dalton, Moore, Forde, Joiner & Stollenwerck, Thomas K. Boone, Dallas, for petitioner.
Thorne, Thorne & Robertson, Michael A. Robertson, Grand Prairie, for respondent.
Alma Ryan sued William Barton Huber for injuries she alleged resulted from an automobile collision. The jury found: (1) Huber's negligence proximately caused the collision; (2) Ryan was injured (no definition of "injury" was given the jury); (3) $375.00 loss of earning capacity in the past; (4) no damages for physical pain and mental anguish in the past or future, loss of earning capacity in the future nor physical impairment. The trial court rendered judgment for Ryan for $375.00.
The court of civil appeals 618 S.W.2d 887, reversed the judgment of the trial court and remanded the cause on the ground that failure of the jury to award damages for pain and mental anguish in the past is in fatal conflict with the affirmative findings of injury and loss of earning capacity in the past. There is no statement of facts. The court of civil appeals presumed Ryan's evidence of injury conformed to her pleadings which alleged pain and mental anguish from back and neck injuries. That court also presumed that Ryan's rendition of the facts about her injuries in her appellate briefs was unchallenged by Huber. The court of civil appeals then took judicial notice that pain necessarily resulted from the type of injury alleged.
In the absence of a statement of facts, a judgment may be sustained by presumption as to fact findings, but will not be rendered invalid by presumption. Schweizer v. Adcock, 145 Tex. 64, 67, 194 S.W.2d 549, 550 (1946). A court is under the duty to reconcile conflicting jury findings if at all possible. Signal Oil & Gas v. Universal Oil Prod., 572 S.W.2d 320, 326 (Tex.1978). This Court, in Traywick v. Goodrich, 364 S.W.2d 190 (Tex.1963), repeated the rule: Id. at 191.
Accompanying the damages issues, the court's charge instructed the jury not to include damages for any condition not resulting from this accident and not to include damages...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
5300 Memorial Investors, Ltd., Matter of
...[1st Dist.] 1987, no writ). The presumption is always that the jurors intended their answers to be consistent. See Huber v. Ryan, 627 S.W.2d 145, 146 (Tex.1981); Woodyard v. Hunt, 695 S.W.2d 730, 732 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1985, no A conflict is fatal when, ignoring the conflicting ......
-
Waltrip v. Bilbon Corporation
...in light of the pleadings and evidence, the manner of submission, and the other findings considered as a whole. See Huber v. Ryan, 627 S.W.2d 145, 145-146 (Tex. 1981); Bender v. Southern Pac. Transp. Co., 600 S.W.2d 257, 260 (Tex. 1980); Traywick v. Goodrich, 364 S.W.2d 190, 191 (Tex. 1963)......
-
Allied Bank West Loop, N.A. v. C.B.D. & Associates, Inc.
...jurors did not intend their answers to conflict, and it is the court's duty to harmonize the jury's findings, if possible. Huber v. Ryan, 627 S.W.2d 145 (Tex.1981). The jury could have reasonably concluded that D.S.I. was negligent and caused "damages" to C.B.D., but could have also found t......
-
Furnace v. Furnace
... ... The presumption is always that the jurors intended their answers to be consistent. Huber v. Ryan, ... 627 S.W.2d 145, 146 (Tex.1982). This court must reconcile apparent conflicts in the jury's findings if reasonably possible in light ... ...