Morrow v. H.E.B., Inc.
| Decision Date | 16 July 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. C-5204,C-5204 |
| Citation | 714 S.W.2d 297 |
| Parties | Sarah Marie MORROW, Petitioner, v. H.E.B., INC., Respondent. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
We grant the motion for rehearing, withdraw our judgment and opinion of June 11, 1986, and substitute the following.
Sarah Marie Morrow sued H.E.B. claiming that she slipped and fell due to H.E.B.'s negligence and that the store was negligent in its treatment toward her after she fell. The jury failed to find that H.E.B. was negligent in causing her fall but did find H.E.B. negligent in its later treatment of her.
Prior to trial, Morrow had sent H.E.B. interrogatories asking for the names and addresses of employees who had first come to Morrow's aid. H.E.B. answered naming Mr. Ken Murphy and giving the address as simply "Missouri." Three weeks prior to trial, H.E.B. discovered that Mr. Murphy was now living in San Antonio, Texas and contacted him by phone but did not supplement its answer to Morrow. Due to H.E.B.'s failure to supplement, the trial court excluded the testimony of Mr. Murphy. The court of appeals reversed holding the trial court had abused its discretion in not allowing Murphy to testify. 704 S.W.2d 93. We grant the application for writ of error and without hearing oral argument reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and remand the cause to the court of appeals pursuant to Tex.R.Civ.P. 483.
The trial court ruled correctly that Tex.R.Civ.P. 166b(5) placed a duty on H.E.B. to supplement its answer and inform Morrow that Murphy was now located in San Antonio. Under Tex.R.Civ.P. 215(5), failure to supplement results in the loss of the opportunity to offer the witness' testimony. The sanction is automatic. The exception is when good cause is shown why the testimony should be allowed in spite of the discovery sanction. Determination of good cause is within the sound discretion of the trial court. That determination can only be set aside if that discretion was abused. Smithson v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 665 S.W.2d 439, 442 (Tex. 1984).
To determine if there is an abuse of discretion, we must look to see if the court acted without reference to any guiding rules and principles. Downer v. Aquamarine Operations, Inc., 701 S.W.2d 238 (Tex. 1985), ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Texas Farmers Ins. Co. v. Soriano
...the reviewing court must determine if the trial court acted without reference to any guiding rules and principles. Morrow v. H.E.B., Inc., 714 S.W.2d 297, 298 (Tex.1986). In view of the guiding principle that requires that broad form questions be used when feasible and the totality of the c......
-
CSR Ltd. v. Link
...Appeals, 700 S.W.2d 916, 917 (Tex.1985). To determine there is an abuse of discretion, we review the entire record. See Morrow v. H.E.B., Inc., 714 S.W.2d 297 (Tex.1986). Our focus remains on the trial court order regardless of the court of appeals' decision. Johnson, 700 S.W.2d at 918. The......
-
Ed Rachal Foundation v. D'Unger
...court finds good cause, the failure to supplement discovery results in the loss of opportunity to present evidence. Morrow v. HEB, Inc., 714 S.W.2d 297, 297-98 (Tex.1986). The trial court's determination of whether a party had good cause for failure to supplement discovery will not be set a......
-
Ricardo N., Inc. v. Turcios de Argueta
...allowed. TEX.R.CIV.P. 166b(6), 166b(5), 215(5); Alvarado v. Farah Mfg. Co., Inc., 830 S.W.2d 911, 914 (Tex.1992); Morrow v. H.E.B., Inc., 714 S.W.2d 297, 297-98 (Tex.1986). The automatic exclusion imposed by Rule 215(5) does not apply when a trial is postponed due to nonsuit, nor due to res......
-
Contested matters
...expert, or otherwise, not revealed by OPPONENT in original or timely supplemented interrogatories or depositions. Morrow v. H.E.B., Inc., 714 S.W.2d 297 (Tex. 1986). Granted ___________ Denied____________ Modified ____________ 5. Testimony From Unqualified Person That OPPONENT not elicit an......
-
Table of cases
...1993, writ denied), §4:40 Mohseni v. Hartman , 363 S.W.3d (Tex. App. — Houston [1st] 2011, no pet.), §12:13 Morrow v. H.E.B., Inc., 714 S.W.2d 297 (Tex. 1986), Form 15-9 N Newton v. Newton , 61 Tex. 511 (1884), §15:40 O Olguin v. Jungman , 931 S.W.2d 607 (Tex. App. — San Antonio 1996, no wr......