Caseflicks

Texas Supreme Court • 1965

Garza v. Alviar

395 S.W.2d 821 | 9 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 76 | 1965 Tex. LEXIS 288

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, this case teaches that a party must clearly preserve and present a factual-insufficiency complaint; a motion to disregard a jury finding raises only a no-evidence question, not a request for appellate reweighing of the evidence.

Background

Eleven-year-old Linda Alviar was struck while crossing Almond Street in Alice, Texas by an automobile owned by Remigio Garza and driven by his son, Raymond. The jury found that Raymond negligently drove north on a street designated for one-way southbound traffic and that this caused the accident. It also found that he was speeding but that his speed was not a proximate cause.

The jury rejected several allegations of contributory negligence by Linda, including failure to keep a proper lookout and failure to yield the right of way. It did find, however, that she ran from immediately behind a soda-water truck just before the accident, and that this conduct was negligent and a proximate cause of her injuries. The trial court entered judgment for the Garzas on those findings.

Linda's father, acting individually and as her next friend, appealed. The Court of Civil Appeals treated one of the plaintiffs' points as a factual-insufficiency challenge to the finding that Linda was negligent in running from behind the truck. It reversed and remanded for a new trial. The Garzas sought review in the Texas Supreme Court.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether the Texas Supreme Court could examine the Court of Civil Appeals' factual-insufficiency ruling.

Holding

Yes, but only to determine whether the Court of Civil Appeals' factual jurisdiction was properly invoked; the Supreme Court could not reweigh the evidence or review the merits of a properly presented factual-insufficiency holding.

Reasoning

Texas appellate procedure distinguishes a legal-sufficiency, or “no evidence,” complaint from a factual-insufficiency complaint. A no-evidence complaint presents a legal question: the reviewing court considers only evidence supporting the verdict and disregards contrary evidence. If sustained, it can permit the court to disregard the finding and render judgment, subject to procedural limits.

A factual-insufficiency complaint instead asks whether supporting evidence is too weak, or contrary evidence too overwhelming, to permit the finding to stand. The Court of Civil Appeals has conclusive authority over that factual question and must consider all the evidence. If it sustains the complaint, its proper remedy is a new trial, not rendition of a contrary finding.

Although the Supreme Court lacked authority to reassess the intermediate court's factual weighing of the proof, it retained authority to decide the threshold procedural question: whether the plaintiffs had actually presented a factual-insufficiency point that authorized the Court of Civil Appeals to exercise that jurisdiction.

Issue #2

Whether the plaintiffs' point of error and trial-court filings raised a factual-insufficiency challenge to the jury's finding that Linda negligently ran from behind the truck.

Holding

No. The plaintiffs asserted, at most, a no-evidence challenge to submission of and reliance on the jury findings; they did not preserve or present a factual-insufficiency complaint.

Reasoning

The plaintiffs' fourth point complained generally that the trial court erred by overruling their motion to disregard certain jury findings. Their argument maintained that Special Issues 14, 15, and 16 were evidentiary matters that should not have been submitted and that their answers could not support a defense judgment. Their only reference to evidentiary sufficiency was that the evidence was insufficient to warrant submitting the issues to the jury.

Under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 301, a trial court may disregard a jury finding only when the finding has no support in the evidence. A trial court cannot refuse submission of an issue, or disregard a jury answer, merely because the evidence is factually insufficient. Thus, a complaint that an issue should not have been submitted or that a finding should be disregarded because the evidence was insufficient can only mean that there was no evidence.

The motion-for-new-trial assignment incorporated by the plaintiffs was also too general to require appellate consideration. Even overlooking that defect, neither the assignment, the point of error, nor the accompanying argument challenged the factual sufficiency of the evidence supporting Special Issue 15. The Court of Civil Appeals therefore erred by reversing on factual-insufficiency grounds.

Issue #3

Whether the Supreme Court could consider the plaintiffs' remaining points raised in the Court of Civil Appeals.

Holding

No. Those issues were either procedurally unsupported below or were not brought to the Supreme Court by an application for writ of error.

Reasoning

Several of the plaintiffs' remaining appellate points lacked proper assignments of error in the motion for new trial, which was why the Court of Civil Appeals struck them. The other points, even if meritorious, would have required reversal and rendition or modification and affirmance rather than the new-trial disposition adopted below.

Because those remaining questions were not presented to the Texas Supreme Court through an application for writ of error, the Court could not consider them as a basis for disturbing the trial court's judgment.