expert’s opinion is not admissible when based solely on hearsay reports which are not in evidence; opinion that is partially based on hearsay may be admissible
How later courts described this case
- expert’s opinion is not admissible when based solely on hearsay reports which are not in evidence; opinion that is partially based on hearsay may be admissible
- $56,576.44 judgment for unspecified serious injury to knee and neck, twenty percent permanent disability, inability to sit for prolonged periods of time, possible future surgery
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
In her motion for rehearing, Nancy Grantham requests that she be allowed to remit the portion of the judgment awarding her $39,600 for loss of future earning capacity, and prays that the judgment of the trial court be reformed so as to eliminate this recovery and, as so reformed, be affirmed.
Mr. Moore’s only response to this request has been to challenge this Court’s jurisdiction to accept an offer of remittitur.
*292 A review of our cases indicates that we have accepted similar offers of remittitur in the past.
“It is the law that where the portion of a jury’s verdict tainted with misconduct, or improperly arrived at, is capable of definite and accurate ascertainment, and where the jury acted free from prejudice and passion, a remittitur of the portion so tainted or improperly arrived at will cure the error, and the part of the verdict free from the taint of misconduct and properly arrived at will be permitted to stand.”
Texas Employer’s Insurance Association v. Lightfoot, 139 Tex. 304, 309 , 162 S.W.2d 929, 931 (1942). See also Ogle v. Craig, 464 S.W.2d 95, 98 (Tex.1971).
In the instant case, the jury’s award to Ms. Grantham for the other elements of her injuries were neither addressed, nor tainted, by Dr. Hansen’s inadmissible testimony. Accordingly, Ms. Grantham’s offer to remit that part of the award that was the subject of Dr. Hansen’s inadmissible testimony is accepted. In all other respects, Ms. Grant-ham’s motion for rehearing is overruled.
Accordingly, judgment is now rendered as follows:
(a) The judgment heretofore rendered by this Court is set aside.
(b) The judgment of the court of civil appeals is reversed.
(c) The judgment of the trial court is modified so as to award Nancy Grantham a recovery against William Moore for actual damages in the amount of $16,976.44, with interest thereon at the rate of nine percent per annum from November 28,1977, and as so modified, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
(d)The costs are apportioned one-half to be paid by petitioner, William Moore, and one-half to be paid by respondent, Nancy Grant-ham.