The c ounty court’s char g e and judgme nt ide ntify appellee as “Jonathon” Edwar ds but other 1 do c ume nts in t

he re c or d id e nti fy

him a s “ Jona tha

n” Ed wa rd s. 

### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-05-00408- CV

Weldon Clark an d Diane Clark, App ellants

v. Jonathon Edw ards, Appellee

F ROM THE COUNTY COURT OF LEE COUNTY NO. 2822, H ONO RAB LE EVAN GONZALES, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N
Weldon Cl ark an d Di an e C l ark br ing this pro se appea l of the county court’s taken o t h i n g j u d gm en to n a j u ry v er d i ct aga i n s tap p el l ee J o n at h o n E d wa rd s o n t h ei r p ro p er t y d am age 1

a ri sin g fr om a

ve hic le c oll isi on . In th e ir so le iss ue , the Cla

rk s a rgue that th e c ounty

c ourt e rr e d in rende ring a take -nothing judgme nt that was inconsistent with the jury ’s v er d i ct
. Be cause we
c on c lud e that th e c ourt

re nd e re d ju dg me nt c on sis te nt w iththe ve rd ic t, w e a ff ir m.
BACK GR OUND I t is undisput ed that, on the a fternoon of J une 12, 2003, Chester

Newma n, who was Clark’s employ ee, w as driving Clark’s wr ecke r whe n it collided with a truck drive n by Edwar ds.2

Evidence at trial sug g ested that the pair approa ched eac h other from opposite sides of a blind cur ve
on a nar row dirt roa d, and collided he ad-on. The repor t of t he investi g ating peac e off icer , which wa s admitted into evidence , listed both drivers’ “ failure to give half of roadw ay ” as a fac tor contributing to the collision. The report also identified bot h drivers’ “fa ulty evasive action” a s a fa ctor that may have c ontributed to the collision.

The Clarks sue d Edwar ds in justice court, claiming $4,823.31 for an “ unpaid amount on automobile wre cked,” plus court costs of $82. Af t er a j u ry trial, the justice cour

t entere d a judgme nt awar ding the Clarks t h e full amount they reque sted, $4,905.31. Edwar ds appea led the justice court’ s judgme nt to the county court, wher e it wa s subject to de novo revie w. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 26.042(e) (West 2004) ; T ex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.001(a) (West 1997); Te x. R. Ci v . P. 5 7 4 b
. E d w a r d s ’ s a p p e a l w a s tr ie d to a ju

r y . T h e c o u n ty c o u rt s u

b mi tted eac h driver’ s neg lige nce to the jur y in the following manner : QUESTI ON NO. 1 Di d th e n e g li g e n c e , if a n y , o f th e p e r s o n s n a me d b e lo w p r o xim a te ly cause the occur renc e in question? An s we r “ Ye s ” o r “ No ” f

o r e ac h o f t h e f

o l l o wi n g: a. Jonathon Edwards

_____ b. Chester L eon Ne wman, I I

_____ Predica ted upon an a ffirmative answe r as to both dri v er s, Question 2 asked the jury to apportion responsibility

for the oc curr ence betwee n them. The jury was not aske d to deter

mine the amount of damag es, if any , that resulted f rom the occ urre nce.Th e Cla rk s c on te nd that on e ha lf of the jus tic e c ourt ’s a wa rd is $ 2, 49 9. 50 , b a se d o n th e ir 2 asser tion that the justice court awa rded Clark $4,999.00. The re cord shows that the justice court’ s judgme nt awar ded $4,905.31 to Clark, half of which is $2,452.65. 3 I n response to Question 1, the jury found t h at neither

driver’ s neg lige nce ha d pr oxima te l y c a

u s e d t h e o c c u r

r e n c e . I t t h u s d i d n o t r e a c h t h e p r o p o rt i o n a t e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i s s u e in Question 2. The c ounty

court re ndere d judgme nt on the jury ’s ver dict, order ing that the Clarks take nothing f rom Edwar ds. This appea l followed.
DI SCU SSIO N I n their sole issue, the Clarks c ontend that the county court erre d by not rende ring judgme nt awar ding the m half of the a mount that the justi ce c ourt origi n ally awa rded the m. The

2 Clarks’ ar g ument is premised on an e rrone ous interpre tation of the jury ’s ver dict. Specifica lly , they
c on str ue the jur y ’s fa il u r e to find t h at t he neg lige nce of either Ed wa rd s o r N e wm a n p ro xima te ly
c a u s e d th e c o ll is io n a s a n a f

f ir mati v e f in d in g th a t bo th w e r e 5 0 p e r c e n t r e s p o n s ib le
. T h e y e mp h a s iz e that Texas law allows a cla imant to recove r dama g es unless he is found r esponsible for mor e than 50 perc ent of the harm for which re lief is soug ht. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 33.001 (West 1997). Th e jur

y ’s fa ilure to f

ind that e ith e r E dw a rd

or Ne wm a n’ s n e g lig e nc e prox im ate ly
cause d the collision me ans only that the jury deter mined that both parties fa iled to meet their burde n of proof on that issue. See C &

R T ra ns po rt, I nc . v . Ca mp be ll , 406 S.W .2d 191, 194 (Tex. 1966); Princess Enters., Inc. v . Superstar Amuseme nts, Inc. , 718 S.W .2d 40, 41 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1986, no writ). To pre vail on the question of neg lige nce, the Clarks had to pr ove the exist ence of a le g al4

duty , a b re ac h o f t hat duty , and dama g es proximately cause d by

the bre ach. Se e IH

S Ce da rs Treatment Ctr. of Desoto, Tex., Inc. v . Mason , 143 S.W .3d 794, 798 (Tex. 2004). The Clarks’ fa ilure to o bta in f

a vo ra ble fi nd ing s o n th e ir

ne g lig e nc e iss ue is f

a ta l to the ir

c la im. Ad dit ion a lly , b e c a us e the re wa s n ot an y a ff

ir ma tiv e fi nd ing of ne g lig e nc e , the re wa s not a ny pe rc e nta g e of

re sp on sib ili ty fo r t he jur y to a llo c a te , a

nd the c ha rg e pr op e rl y

ins tr uc te d th e jur

y no t to re a c h th e propo rt iona te responsibility question unless it found bot h parties ne g lige nt. See Com m. on Pa tte rn Jury Cha rg e s, Sta te B a r o f T e x., T e xas P a tte rn Jury Cha rg e s— Ge ne ra l N e g lig e nc e & I ntenti on al Per so na l T or ts PJC 4.3 & c mt. (2 00 3) ; se e als o Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. §§ 33.002(a ), .003 (West Supp. 2005); Tex. R. Civ. P. 277 (re quiring apportionment of loss among eac h person “found c ulpable”)
. Th e c ounty

c ourt ’s re nd iti on

of a take -n oth ingjud g me nt i s c on sis te nt w iththi s v e rd ic t.
CO NC LU SION We affir m the judgme nt of the county court.

Bob Pembe rton, J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces Pembe rton and Waldrop Affir med Filed: Jul y

7, 2006