Speier v. Webster College
| Decision Date | 25 March 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. B-9923,B-9923 |
| Citation | 616 S.W.2d 617 |
| Parties | Charles C. SPEIER et al., Petitioners, v. WEBSTER COLLEGE, Respondent. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Pat Maloney, San Antonio, for petitioners.
Groce, Locke & Hebdon, Ann C. Livingston, Thomas H. Crofts, and John O'Connell, San Antonio, for respondent.
This is a deceptive trade practice case. Eleven San Antonio policemen 1 brought suit against Webster College for treble damages for misrepresentations made about its master's degree program in criminal justice. Based on a jury verdict, the trial court rendered judgment against Webster College. The court of civil appeals reversed the judgment and remanded the cause to the trial court. 605 S.W.2d 712. We affirm that part of the judgment of the court of civil appeals denying the policemen recovery for mental anguish. We reverse that part of the judgment of the court of civil appeals holding the admission of a chart summarizing testimony into evidence was reversible error and, thus, we render judgment for the policemen.
In December 1977, Webster College operated a one-year master's degree program in criminal justice at Brooks Air Force Base in San Antonio. It offered the program to civilians as well as military personnel. The policemen enrolled in the first eight-week semester of the program in anticipation of receiving a Master of Arts degree in Administration of Justice within the year. They attended classes at night while retaining their jobs with the San Antonio Police Department. Near the end of the first semester, Webster College notified the policemen that they would not be allowed to complete the program because the college could no longer offer courses to civilians. Several of the policemen immediately dropped out. The others finished the first semester but were not allowed to enroll for the next session.
The eleven policemen sued Webster College alleging damages for tuition, books, cost of travel to and from classes, time lost from employment, lost job opportunities, and mental anguish. The cause was submitted to the jury on special issues. The jury answered all liability issues against Webster College. They also found damages for each policeman for tuition, books, cost of travel to and from classes, and mental anguish. The jury did not find any damages for time lost from employment or lost job opportunities. The trial court trebled damages and rendered judgment on the verdict against Webster College for $174,940 of which $165,000 represented recovery for mental anguish.
The court of civil appeals reversed the judgment of the trial court and remanded the cause for a new trial. The court of civil appeals held that the policemen were not entitled to recover damages for mental anguish because no evidence existed to support such relief. The court also held that the trial court committed reversible error in admitting into evidence a chart summarizing the oral testimony of the policemen on damages. For the reasons stated in its opinion, we affirm that part of the judgment of the court of civil appeals denying the policemen recovery for mental anguish.
The primary question presented here is whether it was error and, if so, reversible error for the trial court to admit into evidence a chart reflecting the oral testimony of the policemen on damages. During the course of trial, the attorney for the policemen prepared a chart which was placed within the view of the jury. The chart listed the eleven policemen with six blank spaces beside each name whereby damages for tuition, books, cost of travel to and from classes, time lost from employment, lost job opportunities, and mental anguish could be filled in. When each policeman testified on damages, the attorney would fill in the figure reflecting the policeman's testimony into the appropriate blank space on the chart. After all the policemen had testified, all the blank spaces were filled in except those representing damages for lost job opportunities. At the end of trial, the trial court admitted the chart into evidence as "Plaintiffs' Exhibit 11." Webster College's objections that the chart was not evidence were overruled. The trial court also permitted the jury to take the chart with them into the jury room during deliberations. 2
Disposition of this case is controlled by Champlin Oil & Refining Co. v. Chastain, 403 S.W.2d 376 (Tex.1965). In that case, we held that "charts and diagrams designed to summarize or perhaps emphasize" the testimony of witnesses are, within the discretion of the trial court, admissible into evidence. Id. at 389; see also Cooper Petroleum Co. v. LaGloria Oil & Gas Co., 436 S.W.2d 889 (Tex.1969). This assumes, of course, that the testimony summarized is admissible and already before the jury. See Cooper Petroleum Co. v. LaGloria Oil & Gas Co., supra, and Conford v. United States, 336 F.2d 285, 287 (10th Cir. 1964). We recognize that such summaries are useful and oftentimes essential, particularly in complicated lawsuits to expedite trials and to aid juries in recalling the testimony of witnesses. See Manges v. Willoughby, 505 S.W.2d 379, 383 ().
Webster College contends that visual aids such as the one used by the policemen which merely list items and amounts of damages sought are not admissible into evidence. As authority for this contention, it cites Harvey v. State, 389 S.W.2d 692 (Tex.Civ.App. Dallas 1965, writ ref'd n. r. e.), where a chart summarizing testimony on damages was admitted into evidence. There, the court wrote:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wheatfall v. State
...individually as to this list. Nor does the record indicate the lists were used as demonstrative evidence. See Speier v. Webster College, 616 S.W.2d 617, 618-619 (Tex.1981) (within the discretion of the trial court, charts or diagrams designed to emphasize the testimony of witnesses are admi......
-
In re M.P.
...if any part of it is admissible." Brown & Root, Inc. v. Haddad, 142 Tex. 624, 180 S.W.2d 339, 341 (1944) (quoted by Speier v. Webster College, 616 S.W.2d 617, 619 (Tex.1981)); accord In re K.C.P., 142 S.W.3d 574, 583 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2004, no pet.); Leaird's, Inc. v. Wrangler, Inc., 31 S......
-
Sanchez v. Schindler
...common law and that damages for mental anguish require proof of physical injury or conduct worse than negligence. Speier v. Webster College, 616 S.W.2d 617, 618 (Tex.1981), aff'g in part, 605 S.W.2d 712, 713-14 (Tex.Civ.App.--Eastland 1980); Brown v. American Transfer & Storage Co., 601 S.W......
-
Wheat v. United States
...manifestations, see e.g., Speier v. Webster College, 605 S.W.2d 712, 713-15 (Tex.Civ.App.—Eastland 1980), aff'd in part, 616 S.W.2d 617, 618 (Tex. 1981); the Court believes that the mental anguish suffered by Shilla Wheat and her family did result in physical manifestations. Cf. Lucas v. Ha......
-
Evidence
...through the testimony of the mechanic’s expert, and the manufacturer had not objected to its introduction. Speier v. Webster College , 616 S.W.2d 617 (Tex. 1981). The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting into evidence a chart, reflecting the oral testimony of eleven separat......
-
Exhibits and Evidence
...properly admissible is insufficient if the objector did not object to the incompetent portion of the chart. Speier v. Webster College , 616 S.W.2d 617 (Tex. 1981). You do not have to tell the court which portions are admissible; you only have to specify which portions are not admissible. If......