Opinion

Moore v. Lillebo

  • 674 S.W.2d 474
Court
Texas Court of Appeals, 8th District (El Paso)
Filed
Sep 5, 1984
Status
Published
Author
Preslar
On the bench
Preslar, Ward, Osborn
Cited by
7 cases
Authority
More cited than 10.8%

Reversed on other grounds by Moore v. Lillebo, 29 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 513 (1986)

The opinion

STEPHEN F. PRESLAR, Chief Justice,

dissenting.

I respectfully dissent on the basis that the Appellants were entitled to a submission of issues as to their damages for the loss of companionship and society and for mental anguish resulting from the death of their son. I agree with the majority that there is no evidence raising the issue of conscious pain and suffering.

As noted by the discussion of the evidence, it is meager, but it does raise fact issues sufficient to require submission to the jury. The rule is that the trial court may not refuse to submit an issue because of the factual insufficiency of the evidence to support an answer thereto. Wenzel v. Rollins Motor Co., 598 S.W.2d 895, 902 (Tex.Civ.App.—El Paso 1980, writ ref’d n.r. e.); Volkswagen of America, Inc. v. Licht, 544 S.W.2d 442 (Tex.Civ.App.—El Paso 1976, no writ); Eddleman v. Scalco, 484 S.W.2d 122, 124 (Tex.Civ.App.—Beaumont 1972, writ ref’d n.r.e.). If there is some evidence raising an issue, the trial court is required to submit it even though the evidence may be insufficient to support an affirmative answer. Wenzel v. Rollins Motor Co. and Volkswagen of America, Inc. v. Licht, supra.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.