Shupe v. Lingafelter
Decision Date | 05 May 2006 |
Docket Number | No. 05-0083.,05-0083. |
Citation | 192 S.W.3d 577 |
Parties | Brent J. SHUPE and JCJ Trucking, and Midwest Coast Transport D/B/A MCT, Petitioners, v. John LINGAFELTER, Kathleen Lingafelter, Mark Girgus, and Carrie Girgus, Individually and as Next Friends for Kaley Girgus, a Minor; Matthew Teague, Brenda Teague, and Daniel Leon Jackson and Lisa Boyd, Respondents. |
Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Jack McKinley, Robert L. Ramey, Ramey, Chandler, McKinley & Zito, P.C., Houston, for Petitioner.
Kevin B. Miller, Law Offices of Miller & Bicklein, Lubbock, for Respondent.
In this personal injury suit, a jury returned a verdict that the negligence of Joseph Heppler, the driver of a pickup truck, was the sole cause of a multi-vehicle accident. The jury further found that none of the negligence that caused the accident was attributable to another driver, Brent Shupe, or his alleged employer, Midwest Coast Transport (MCT). Because the jury concluded that the plaintiffs suffered no damages, the trial court entered a take-nothing judgment. The court of appeals reversed the judgment and remanded the case for a new trial on grounds that the trial court committed reversible error by refusing to submit a requested instruction on MCT's alleged negligent entrustment of a commercial vehicle to Shupe. We reverse the court of appeals' judgment and uphold the jury's verdict.
On June 30, 2004, a truck pulling a wide load was stopped in the eastbound lane of Highway 67 on the narrow, steel-encased Brazos River Bridge. As traffic stacked up behind the truck, a van came to a stop several vehicles behind the wide load. Heppler's pickup truck rear-ended the van and then swerved into the westbound lane into the path of an oncoming tractor trailer driven by Shupe. Shupe's tractor trailer collided with Heppler's pickup, shearing the pickup's fuel tank and causing a fire that injured Heppler's passengers. Shupe then lost control of the tractor trailer and struck a Toyota driven by John Lingafelter in the eastbound lane, damaging the car and injuring the occupants.
Lingafelter and his passengers (the Lingafelter plaintiffs) sued Heppler, Shupe, JCJ Trucking, and MCT.1 After the Lingafelter plaintiffs settled with Heppler for a $20,000 insurance policy limit, Heppler's passengers (the Heppler plaintiffs) intervened in the suit. The Lingafelter and Heppler plaintiffs maintained the suit against Shupe, JCJ Trucking, and MCT for damages arising from Shupe's negligence. The plaintiffs' theories of recovery against JCJ Trucking and MCT included vicarious liability as Shupe's employers; direct liability for negligently training, licensing, and approving Shupe as a driver; and negligent entrustment.
The jury charge contained one liability question addressing the alleged negligence of the defendants. During the charge conference, instead of requesting a separate question on negligent entrustment, the plaintiffs requested the following instruction: The trial court refused this instruction but did provide definitions of negligence, ordinary care, proximate cause, sole proximate cause, and sudden emergency.
In Question 1 of the jury charge, the trial court inquired whether the negligence of Shupe, MCT, or Heppler proximately caused the accident. The jury answered "yes" for Heppler and "no" for MCT and Shupe.2 The trial court also submitted a question asking the jury to determine the percentage of the negligence attributable to each defendant. The jury answered "100%" for Heppler and "0%" for MCT and Shupe.3 The jury also answered "$0" to each of seven damages questions. The trial court entered a take-nothing judgment against all plaintiffs.
A divided court of appeals reversed the trial court's verdict and remanded for a new trial on grounds that the trial court erred by not including the requested jury instruction on negligent entrustment in its charge to the jury. 154 S.W.3d 233, 234. Having reversed on the liability issues, the court of appeals also agreed with Lingafelter that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury findings of zero damages. Id. at 235. The dissent argued that the instruction regarding negligent entrustment was unnecessary and its omission harmless error. Id. at 235 (Gray, C.J., dissenting). The court of appeals denied rehearing in a supplemental opinion. 154 S.W.3d 233. Without determining error, we agree with the dissent that any error in the omission was harmless.
We review a trial court's decision to submit or refuse a particular instruction under an abuse of discretion standard. See La.-Pac. Corp. v. Knighten, 976 S.W.2d 674, 676 (Tex.1998)
. When a trial court refuses to submit a requested instruction on an issue raised by the pleadings and evidence, the question on appeal is whether the request was reasonably necessary to enable the jury to render a proper verdict. Tex. Workers' Comp. Ins. Fund v. Mandlbauer, 34 S.W.3d 909, 912 (Tex.2000) ( ). The omission of an instruction is reversible error only if the omission probably caused the rendition of an improper judgment. TEX. R. APP. P. 61.1(a); 44.1(a); see Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Johnson, 106 S.W.3d 718, 723 (Tex.2003). Error in the omission of an issue is harmless "when the findings of the jury in answer to other issues are sufficient to support the judgment." See Boatland of Houston, Inc. v. Bailey, 609 S.W.2d 743, 750 (Tex.1980) ( ); see also City of Brownsville v. Alvarado, 897 S.W.2d 750, 752 (Tex.1995) ( ).
On a negligent entrustment theory, a plaintiff must prove, among other elements, that the driver...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
HNMC, Inc. v. Chan
...REVIEW & APPLICABLE LAW We review a trial court's decision on jury charge issues for an abuse of discretion. Shupe v. Lingafelter , 192 S.W.3d 577, 579 (Tex. 2006) (per curiam) ; Sloane v. Goldberg B'Nai B'Rith Towers , 577 S.W.3d 608, 616 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2019, no pet.). A t......
-
Newton v. State
...rev'd, 197 S.W.3d 793 (Tex.2006) (per curiam); Lingafelter v. Shupe, 154 S.W.3d 233 (Tex.App.—Waco 2005) (Vance, J.), rev'd, 192 S.W.3d 577 (Tex.2006) (per curiam). 1. The indictment alleged that Newton committed aggravated sexual assault by "caus[ing] the penetration of the female sexual o......
-
Txi Transp. Co. v. Hughes
...that "[t]he opinion of an investigating officer with level two reconstruction training is admissible"), rev'd on other grounds, 192 S.W.3d 577 (Tex.2006). But see Pilgrim's Pride Corp. v. Smoak, 134 S.W.3d 880, 891-92 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2004, pet. denied) (holding police officer not traine......
-
Hassan v. Greater Houston Transportation Company, No. 01-05-00494-CV (Tex. App. 2/16/2007)
...court reviews a trial court's decision to submit or refuse an instruction under an abuse of discretion standard. Shupe v. Lingafelter, 192 S.W.3d 577, 579 (Tex. 2006). When the trial court refuses to submit a requested instruction on an issue raised by the pleadings and the evidence, the is......
-
CHAPTER 2 Standards of Review and Scope of Review
...App.—Texarkana 2011, no pet.).[270] See § 2-2:2.10 for the discussion of de novo review of jury-charge issues.[271] Shupe v. Lingafelter, 192 S.W.3d 577, 579 (Tex. 2006) (per curiam).[272] JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Prof'l Pharmacy II, __ S.W.3d __, No. 02-11-00373-CV, 2014 WL 7473779, at......