Randall v. Dallas Power & Light Co.
| Decision Date | 15 June 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. C-7360,C-7360 |
| Citation | 752 S.W.2d 4 |
| Parties | Robert RANDALL, Petitioner, v. DALLAS POWER & LIGHT COMPANY, et al., Respondents. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
L.L. "Mick" McBee and Michael T. Maher, Dallas, for petitioner.
Wm. Stephen Boyd and W. Stephen Cockerham, Worsham, Forsythe, Sampels & Wooldridge, Dallas, for respondents.
This case arises from an automobile collision between Randall and Prior, a Dallas Power & Light Co. (DPL) employee. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of DPL. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that although Randall's affidavit alleged representations by DPL's claims agent concerning future damages, Randall's deposition testimony made it clear that the agent made no express representations about future damages. The court of appeals further held that the information in Randall's affidavit consisted of a unilateral or subjective determination of the facts, and that such information does not constitute summary judgment evidence. 745 S.W.2d 397. We reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and remand the cause to the trial court.
Randall and Prior were involved in an automobile collision. Randall sued Prior and DPL, alleging damages proximately caused by Prior's negligence. DPL and Prior moved for summary judgment asserting release and accord and satisfaction as complete defenses to Randall's negligence action. Randall then amended his pleadings alleging mutual mistake and fraud in response to the defenses of release and accord and satisfaction. In support of his opposition to the summary judgment, Randall filed an affidavit stating that Gerald Moore, a claims representative at DPL, made various representations to him regarding compensation for car repairs and his personal injuries. He further stated in his affidavit that Mr. Moore offered to compensate him for some of his losses suffered up to that point, and assured him that DPL would take care of any future problems. The trial court denied the first summary judgment motion. DPL subsequently deposed Randall concerning the representations he alleged in his affidavit. During the deposition, Randall stated that he could not remember any representations being made by the claims agent regarding future damages or expenses. After Randall's second deposition was taken, DPL filed its second motion for summary judgment which was granted by the trial court.
The focal point of this case evolves from the issue of whether conflicting statements made in an affidavit and deposition raise a fact question which would preclude summary judgment. In this case, the court of appeals acknowledged that Randall's affidavit alleged representations made by DPL's claims agent concerning future damages. However, the court of appeals ignored these...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
AccuBanc Mortg. Corp. v. Drummonds
...not conclusively negate the existence of a contract; rather, it raises a fact issue to be resolved by the jury. Randall v. Dallas Power & Light Co., 752 S.W.2d 4, 5 (Tex.1988); Molnar v. Engels, Inc., 705 S.W.2d 224, 226 (Tex.App.--San Antonio 1985, writ ref'd n.r.e.); see also Mendoza v. F......
-
MPG Petroleum, Inc. v. Crosstex CCNG Marketing, Ltd., No. 13-05-609-CV (Tex. App. 10/5/2006)
...evidence, an affidavit must do more than offer mere legal conclusions or subjective opinions. See Randall v. Dallas Power & Light Co., 752 S.W.2d 4, 5 (Tex. 1988) (per curiam); Brownlee v. Brownlee, 665 S.W.2d 111, 112 (Tex. 1984). An affidavit avoids being conclusory when it provides under......
-
Sipes v. General Motors Corp.
...and affidavit opposing summary judgment provide a basis for conflicting inferences, a fact issue arises. Randall v. Dallas Power & Light Co., 752 S.W.2d 4 (Tex.1988). If Jamie Sipes's deposition answers implied that McKnight struck her on the side, then her affidavit definitely provided a b......
-
U.S. for use of Wallace v. Flintco Inc.
...event cannot be doubted." Randall v. Dallas Power & Light Co., 745 S.W.2d 397, 401 (Tex.App.--Dallas 1987), rev'd on other grounds, 752 S.W.2d 4 (Tex.1988) (emphasis in original) (citing Duncan v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 665 S.W.2d 414 (Tex.1984)). Under this rule, "[t]he reference in a releas......
-
Summary judgment practice
...does not control over affidavit testimony in determining whether summary judgment should be granted. Randall v. Dallas Power & Light Co. , 752 S.W.2d 4, 5 (Tex. 1988). Therefore, conflicting testimony in an affidavit and deposition of the same party in opposition to a motion for summary jud......
-
Summary Judgment Practice
...does not control over affidavit testimony in determining whether summary judgment should be granted. Randall v. Dallas Power & Light Co. , 752 S.W.2d 4, 5 (Tex. 1988). Therefore, conflicting testimony in an affidavit and deposition of the same party in opposition to a motion for summary jud......
-
Table of cases
...29:3.B, 29:4.D.1, 29:5.A, 29:5.C, 29:5.D, 30:4.B.2.d, 30:5.D.2, 30:8.C, 41:2.A.1.a, 41:10.A, 41:10.B Randall v. Dallas Power & Light Co. , 752 S.W.2d 4 (Tex. 1988), §41:4.E Randel v. United States Dep’t of Navy , 157 F.3d 392 (5th Cir. 1998), §18:6.B.2 Randi W. v. Muroc Joint Unified School......
-
Summary Judgment Practice
...does not control over affidavit testimony in determining whether summary judgment should be granted. Randall v. Dallas Power & Light Co. , 752 S.W.2d 4, 5 (Tex. 1988). Therefore, conflicting testimony in an affidavit and deposition of the same party in opposition to a motion for summary jud......