Rogers v. Stell, 05-91-00636-CV
| Decision Date | 20 February 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 05-91-00636-CV,05-91-00636-CV |
| Parties | Belinda Moore ROGERS, Appellant, v. Robert STELL and Mary Stell, Appellees. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
F. David Westfall, Dallas, for appellant.
James L. Williams, Dallas, for appellees.
Before BAKER, THOMAS and BURNETT, JJ.
Belinda Moore Rogers appeals a judgment entered against her for property damage to the Stells' car. In four points of error, Rogers contends that the trial court erred in failing to grant her motion for instructed verdict and in not allowing her to testify. We overrule Rogers's points of error. We affirm the trial court's judgment.
Belinda Rogers's and Mary Stell's cars collided on a frontage road as Rogers attempted to enter an expressway. The Stells sued Rogers for the property damage to their car. She answered with a general denial. The Stells served discovery requests on Rogers. One interrogatory asked for the name and address of any witness that she intended to call to testify. She responded "permitted" but objected to the production of documents and to the question as being "excessively burdensome, unnecessary expense, and a harassment to this defendant." She did not give any names of witnesses in response to that interrogatory. She also objected to eighteen other interrogatories. A hearing was set on the objections. Rogers did not appear at that hearing. The trial court overruled all the objections.
Rogers never answered or supplemented her answers to the interrogatories. When Rogers's counsel called her as a witness at trial, the Stells objected on the grounds that she was never named as a witness in response to the interrogatory. The trial court sustained the objection and refused to let her testify. The court then entered judgment in the Stells' favor.
In her first point of error, Rogers contends that the trial court erred in failing to grant her motion for instructed verdict. An instructed verdict is proper when there is no evidence of probative force to raise a material fact question. See Qantel Business Sys., Inc. v. Custom Controls Co., 761 S.W.2d 302, 304 (Tex.1988); Corbin v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 648 S.W.2d 292, 295 (Tex.1983). Rogers does not cite us to evidence or legal authority that shows how the Stells' case was insufficient to establish her liability. Rogers has waived this point of error by failing to argue or cite authority that supports her position. See Essex Crane Rental Corp. v. Striland Constr. Co., 753 S.W.2d 751, 756 (Tex.App.--Dallas 1988, writ denied); TEX.R.APP.P. 74(d). We overrule Rogers's first point of error.
In her second, third, and fourth points of error, Rogers contends that the trial court erred by refusing to let her testify. She argues that the trial court's ruling prevented her from putting on any evidence, that the trial court abused its discretion, and that the rules do not authorize this sanction.
The Stells initially presented Rogers with an improper interrogatory when they asked for the names of witnesses that she intended to call at trial. See Alvarado v. Farah Mfg. Co., 34 Tex.Sup.Ct.J. 107, 109 (Nov. 24, 1991); Gutierrez v. Dallas Indep. School Dist., 729 S.W.2d 691, 693 (Tex.1987). Rogers did not object that the question was outside the permissible bounds of discovery because it would reveal trial strategy or object to the form of the question as improper. See Gutierrez, 729 S.W.2d at 693; Employers Mut. Liab. Ins. Co. v. Butler, 511 S.W.2d 323, 325 (Tex.Civ.App.--Texarkana 1974, writ ref'd n.r.e.); TEX.R.CIV.P. 166b(4). She answered that the question was permitted except to production of documents and then objected that it was excessively burdensome. The Stells requested and had a hearing on the objections. Because a hearing was held, Rogers, as the objecting party, had the burden of establishing privilege, immunity, or some other objection. See McKinney v. National Union Fire Ins. Co., 772 S.W.2d 72, 75 (Tex.1989); TEX.R.CIV.P. 166b(4). Rogers did not assert a proper objection in response to the interrogatory. She did not appear at the hearing to explain the objections or to urge a proper one. In the absence of a proper objection, Rogers had a duty to answer or supplement the interrogatory. See Alvarado, 34 Tex.Sup.Ct.J. at 109; Gutierrez, 729 S.W.2d at 693.
Paragraph 5 of Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 215 provides:
A party who fails to respond to or supplement his response to a request for discovery shall not be entitled to present evidence which the party was under a duty to provide in a response or supplemental response or to offer the testimony of an expert witness or of any other person having relevant knowledge of discoverable matter, unless the trial court finds that good cause sufficient to require admission exists. The burden of establishing good cause is upon the party offering the evidence and good cause must be shown in the record.
Pretrial discovery proceedings have as their aim and purpose the administration of justice by allowing the parties to obtain fullest knowledge of issues and facts prior to trial. See Alvarado, 34 Tex.Sup.Ct.J. at 109. By requiring complete responses to discovery, rule 215 promotes responsible assessment of settlement and prevents trial by ambush. Id. The trial court has discretion to determine whether the offering party has met the burden of showing good cause for admission of the testimony. However, the trial court has no discretion to admit testimony excluded by the rule without a showing of good cause. The rule is mandatory and the sanction automatic. Id. The Texas Supreme Court consistently looks to whether the responding party showed good cause for failure to supplement discovery as being "good cause sufficient to require admission." Id. at 108; TEX.R.CIV.P. 215(5).
The Houston and Amarillo courts have considered this issue. See Smith v. Southwest Feed Yards, Ltd., 811 S.W.2d 717, 718 (Tex.App.--Amarillo 1991, no writ); NCL Studs, Inc. v. Jandl, 792 S.W.2d 182, 184-86 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1990, writ denied); Henry S. Miller Co. v. Bynum, 797 S.W.2d 51, 57-58 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1990, writ granted). The Houston Court has held that the status as a party, whether plaintiff or defendant, constitutes sufficient good cause to allow the party to testify as a fact witness even though not disclosed in response to interrogatories. See Jandl, 792 S.W.2d at 186 (party defendant); Miller, 797 S.W.2d at 57-58 (party plaintiff).
In Miller, the trial court permitted Bynum to testify as a fact witness, but not as an expert witness. Miller, 797 S.W.2d at 57. The Houston Court of Appeals noted that he was the party plaintiff and that the defendant had deposed him prior to trial. Id. Even though the trial court never made an express finding of good cause, the Houston Court found that the trial court could have reasonably concluded that the defendant was fully aware of Bynum's status as a potential fact witness. Id. In NCL Studs v. Jandl, the Houston Court relied on its holding in Miller to find that Jandl's status as a party was sufficient good cause to allow her to testify. Jandl, 792 S.W.2d at 186.
The Amarillo Court declined to follow Miller and Jandl. Smith, 811 S.W.2d at 719-21. It held that the trial court had not abused its discretion in finding that Smith, the party defendant, did not show good cause for allowing his own testimony. Id. at 720. The Amarillo Court criticized the Houston majority's reasoning because good cause is not satisfied by showing that the identity of the potential witness was known to all parties, that the witness's deposition had been taken, or that the witness possessed peculiar knowledge of relevant facts. Id.
The Texas Supreme Court has not yet directly considered the question of an undisclosed party witness. 1 See Alvarado, 34 Tex.Sup.Ct.J. at 110 n. 1. Alvarado shows that the Texas Supreme Court intends for the rules to be straightforward and followed without judicially made exceptions. See Alvarado, 34 Tex.Sup.Ct.J. at 107. In Alvarado, the court noted that it has on ten occasions written...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Guerrero v. Sanders
...1 The First Court in Houston as well as the Amarillo and Dallas courts had previously considered the issue. See Rogers v. Stell, 828 S.W.2d 115, 116-18 (Tex.App.--Dallas 1992), rev'd per curiam, 835 S.W.2d 100 (Tex.1992); Smith v. Southwest Feed Yards, Ltd., 811 S.W.2d 717, 718 (Tex.App.--A......
-
Rogers v. Stell
...refused to allow Rogers to testify in her own defense, and rendered judgment in the Stells' favor. The court of appeals affirmed. 828 S.W.2d 115. Rogers correctly argues that our rules do not permit an interrogatory compelling a party to reveal the witnesses he expects to call at trial. How......