Wilson v. Texas Parks and Wildlife Dept.
Decision Date | 08 December 1994 |
Docket Number | No. D-4015,D-4015 |
Citation | 886 S.W.2d 259 |
Parties | Lydia Mae WILSON, Curtis Dale Wilson, Angela Gale Wilson Kramm, and Lila Wilson, Petitioners, v. TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT, Respondent. |
Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Jay L. Winckler, Austin, Will S. Moursund, Round Mountain, Jim Dear, Austin, for petitioners.
Maureen Powers, Connie Hawkins, Delmar L. Cain, Dan Morales, Austin, for respondent.
This cause requires that we determine whether a trial court commits reversible error by transferring a civil lawsuit filed in a Texas county that qualifies as a proper venue to another county that originally might have been considered a proper venue. Lydia Wilson, Curtis Wilson, Angela Wilson Kramm, and Lila Wilson (collectively "Plaintiffs") sued the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department ("Department") in district court in Travis County, alleging that the Department's negligence caused the drowning deaths of Wilford and Wilton Wilson. The Department filed a motion to transfer venue of Plaintiffs' action to Blanco County. The motion was granted and the case was transferred to Blanco County where, after a jury trial, a take-nothing judgment was rendered in favor of the Department. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that the transfer of a lawsuit from one county of proper venue to another county of proper venue is not reversible error. 853 S.W.2d 825. For the reasons explained herein, we reverse the judgment of the court of appeals, remand this cause to the trial court in Blanco County, and order that the cause be transferred to Travis County for a new trial.
On the afternoon of May 16, 1987, the Wilson fishing party, including Wilford and Wilton Wilson, arrived at Pedernales Falls State Park ("the Park") to go fishing. The Park is located in Blanco County and is owned and operated by the Department. The fishing party walked and waded across one-hundred yards of river bed to get to their fishing spot. By 4:00 p.m., the party was fishing from atop a rock surrounded by water. At 8:00 p.m., the party was joined by two additional members of the Wilson family. Shortly thereafter, the party noticed rising water and attempted to retrace their steps across the river bed. Wilford and Wilton Wilson were unable to cross the river and drowned.
Plaintiffs sued the Department in Travis County, alleging that the Department's negligence caused the drowning deaths of Wilford and Wilton Wilson. Specifically, Plaintiffs alleged that the Department was negligent in the design, implementation, and maintenance of the Park's flood early warning system and in the training of Park personnel. The Department filed a motion to transfer venue of the suit to Blanco County, the site of the drownings. The motion was granted and the suit was transferred. Trial was to a jury who found that the Department was negligent, but failed to find that this negligence was a proximate cause of the deaths. Additionally, the jury found that Wilford and Wilton Wilson's negligent conduct was a proximate cause of their deaths. Finally, the jury found that the Wilson fishing party was not fishing within the park boundaries. Based on the jury's verdict, the trial court rendered a take-nothing judgment in favor of the Department. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that the transfer of a lawsuit from a county of proper venue to another county of proper venue is not reversible error.
The Department contends that the transfer of a civil lawsuit from a county that qualifies as a proper venue to another county that might originally have been considered a proper venue is not reversible error as a matter of law. We disagree.
Venue selection presupposes that the parties to the lawsuit have choices and preferences about where their case will be tried. See TEX.CIV.PRAC. & REM.CODE ANN. §§ 15.001-15.040 (Vernon 1986 & Supp.1994); Maranatha Temple, Inc. v. Enterprise Prod. Co., 833 S.W.2d 736, 741 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, writ denied) ( ). Venue may be proper in many counties under general, mandatory, or permissive venue rules. See TEX.CIV.PRAC. & REM.CODE ANN. §§ 15.001-15.040. The plaintiff is given the first choice in the filing of the lawsuit. See Tieuel v. Southern Pac. Transp. Co., 654 S.W.2d 771, 775 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1983, no writ). If the plaintiff's venue choice is not properly challenged through a motion to transfer venue, the propriety of venue is fixed in the county chosen by the plaintiff. TEX.CIV.PRAC. & REM.CODE ANN. § 15.063 (Vernon 1986); TEX.R.CIV.P. 86-1. If a defendant objects to the plaintiff's venue choice and properly challenges that choice through a motion to transfer venue, the question of proper venue is raised. TEX.R.CIV.P. 86. The burden is on the plaintiff to prove that venue is maintainable in the county of suit. Id. 87-2(a). If the plaintiff fails to meet this burden, the trial court must transfer the lawsuit to another specified county of proper venue. 1 TEX.CIV.PRAC. & REM.CODE ANN. § 15.063(1) (); Tieuel, 654 S.W.2d at 775 ( ). If the plaintiff meets the burden, the trial court must maintain the lawsuit in the county where it was filed. TEX.R.CIV.P. 87-3(c) ().
Together, Rule 87-3(c) and section 15.063(1) require that a lawsuit pleaded and proved to be filed in a county of proper venue may not be transferred. Therefore, if the plaintiff chooses a county of proper venue, and this is supported by proof as required by Rule 87, no other county can be a proper venue in that case. 2 This rule gives effect to the plaintiff's right to select a proper venue. Maranatha Temple, Inc., 833 S.W.2d at 741.
The Department urges that reversible error exists only if the county of trial was one where permissive or mandatory venue never could have been sustained. Such a rule would eviscerate the plaintiff's right to select venue. Id. The First Court of Appeals correctly understood the harsh effect of such a rule:
[W]hen the plaintiff files suit in a permissible county, and the trial court wrongly transfers venue to another county, even a permissible one, the plaintiff has lost his right to choose where to bring his suit. He has neither waived his option by filing in an impermissible county nor had his suit transferred because the defendant has properly shown that it should be. Yet, he has lost the right to bring suit in the permissible county of his choice. He has lost a right which he neither waived nor was rightfully divested of. The harmless error rule should not apply to such a circumstance.
Id. 3 Furthermore, the Department asks us to fashion a rule that runs contrary to the mandatory admonishment of Rule 87-3(c) and that renders section 15.063(1) meaningless. This we cannot do. TEX.GOV'T CODE ANN. § 311.021(2) (Vernon 1988) (); Monsanto Co. v. Cornerstones Mun. Util. Dist., 865 S.W.2d 937, 939 (Tex.1993) ( ).
Accordingly, we hold that if a plaintiff files suit in a county of proper venue, it is reversible error to transfer venue under section 15.063(1) even if the county of transfer would have been proper if originally chosen by the plaintiff. We now consider whether venue was proper in the county where suit was initially brought in this case.
The standard of appellate review is governed by section 15.064(b) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, which provides:
On appeal from the trial on the merits, if venue was improper it shall in no event be harmless error and shall be reversible error. In determining whether venue was or was not proper, the appellate court shall consider the entire record, including the trial on the merits.
TEX.CIV.PRAC. & REM.CODE ANN. § 15.064(b) (Vernon 1986); Ruiz v. Conoco, Inc., 868 S.W.2d 752, 757 (Tex.1993). The "appellate court is oblig[ated] to conduct an independent review of the entire record to determine whether venue was proper in the ultimate county of suit." Ruiz, 868 S.W.2d at 758;...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Limbaugh v. Limbaugh
... ... No. 10-00-017-CV ... Court of Appeals of Texas", Waco ... February 6, 2002 ... [71 S.W.3d 4] ... \xC2" ... See Wilson v. Texas Parks & Wildlife Dep't, 853 S.W.2d 825, 832 ... ...
-
S. Cty. Mutual Ins. Co. v Ochoa
... ... COURT OF APPEALS, THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS ... CORPUS CHRISTI ... March 2, 2000 ... Opinion on ... See Wilson v. Texas Parks and Wildlife Dept., 886 S.W.2d 259, 260 ... ...
-
Golden Eagle Archery Inc. v. Jackson
... ... NO. 98-1076 ... IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS ... Argued on April 6, 1999 ... Delivered on June 29, ... App.-El Paso 1994, writ denied); Wilson v. Texas Parks and Wildlife Dept., 853 S.W.2d 825, 831 ... ...
-
Cantu v. Howard S. Grossman, P.A.
... ... No. 14-06-00078-CV ... Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (14th Dist.) ... January 29, 2008 ... Dept. of Transp., 218 S.W.3d 74, 76 (Tex.2007). The plaintiff ... Id.; Wilson v. Tex. Parks & Wildlife Dept., 886 S.W.2d 259, 260-61 ... ...
-
CHAPTER 3 Reversible Error
...Rivera, 379 S.W.3d 267, 272 (Tex. 2012).[25] Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 15.064(b) (quoted in Wilson v. Texas Parks & Wildlife Dep't, 886 S.W.2d 259, 261 (Tex. 1994)).[26] In re Gen. Elec. Co., 777 S.W.2d 681, 693–94 (Tex. 2008) (orig. proceeding).[27] Tex. R. Civ. P. 301. See generally C......
-
Chapter 22-4 Mandatory Venue Options
...mandatory venue in Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 65.023(a).59 --------Notes:[40] Wilson v. Tex. Parks & Wildlife Dep't., 886 S.W.2d 259, 260-61 (Tex. 1994). This holding predated the legislative authorization of a convenience transfer set forth in Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Cod......
-
Chapter 22-1 Presumptions Accorded to Pleaded Venue Facts
...supports the trial court's venue decision" to transfer venue, apparently ruling contra to Wilson v. Texas Parks and Wildlife Dept., 886 S.W.2d 259, 260-61 (Tex. 1994)).[8] Nalle Plastics Family v. Porter, 406 S.W.3d 186, 195 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi-Edinburg 2013, pet....