## NO. 12-06-00416-CV
IN THE COUR T OF APP EALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APP EALS D ISTRICT

TYLER, TEX AS

RO SA MA RIA M

OR ALE S, I ND IV ID UA LL Y § APP EAL FRO

M T HE T HIR D AN D A S NE XT F RIEN D O F B. M. , V

.M . AND V .M., MINOR CHILDRE N, APPELLANT
V . § JUDICIAL DISTRI CT COURT OF
JAMES WILLIAM DOUGHERTY AND LARRY MABE , INDIV IDUALLY A ND d/b/a TOP GUN TRANSPORT, INC., APP ELL EE § HEN DE RSO N C OU NTY, TE XAS

MEMORA NDUM OPIN ION Th is i s an a

pp e a l f ro m a take no thi ngjud g me nt entere d a g a ins t Ro sa Mari a Mo ra le s, individually

and as ne x t friend of B.M., V.M., and V.M., minor children, in a persona l injury action. Morales sue d for pe rsonal inj uries and other damag es sus tained in a mot or vehicle acc ident cause d, it i s a lle g e d, by

the ne g lig e nc e of

Jame s Wil liam D ou g he rt y and L arr y Ma be , in div idu a lly

and d/b /a Top Gun Tra

nsport, Inc. Mora les prese nts three issues on appea l. She contends the trial court e rre d in i nc lud ingin i ts c ha

rg e “ su bmi ssi on s a

nd /or de fi nit ion s o f c on tr ibutor y ne g lig e nc e , unavo ida

ble

a c c ide nt, and

/or su dd e n e me rg e nc y .” Mo ra le s a lso c la ims the tr ia l c ourt re ve rs ibl y

e rr e d whe n it permitted the in troduction of evide nce r eg ardingher he alth insurance . In her f inal issue, she

ma int a ins the ve rd ic t w a s a g a ins t th e g re at w e ight a nd pr e po nd e ra

nc e of the e vid e nc e
. We a ff

ir m.

B ACKG ROUND Rosa Morales w as the driv er o f a 1987 Gra nd Marquis Mer cury

auto stopped in the2

southbound lane of Highway 19 waitingto make a le ft turn onto County Road 3718 just north of the Athens city limit s. A For d pickup driven by L arr y Thomas was also stopped beh i n dt h e M o ra les vehicle. Atrac tor-tra iler ca me to a stop waitingfor the Morales car to turn left. Dougherty was the driver of a Volvo tra ctor followingapproximately 200 to 300 f

ee t b eh i n d the trac tor-tra iler. The stopped vehicle s were not visibl e to Doug herty beca use of a small hill. As he came over the hill, he applied his brake s. Charles W arr en, the driver of the t rac tor-tra iler i n front of Doug herty , had the best view of the acc ident. He testified that he looked in h i s re ar v i ew mirror and saw the tires of Doug herty ’s Volvo trac tor smoking a s Doug herty desper ately

tried to stop.

Q

. O kay. So what hap p ened next af t er y o u s aw t he cl o ud of smo ke co m i ng at y o u?
A

. H e [ D ough er t y ] was abl e t o vee r t o t he r i gh t , mi s s ed my t r ai l er , come do wn t he bar

d i t ch, t o o k out o ne o f

t he st eel po st s o n a road s i gn.

. . . . Q

. W hat hap p ened af t er he hi t t he si gn?
A

. W ell , he co m e b o un cing o n d o w n p ast m e, an d I assum e th a t he p ro b ab l y l o st

c o n tro l o f his tru c k w h e n he hit the sign p o st, b e c a u s e h e ve e re d b a c k to the left, co m e b ack o n t he hi ghway and cl i p p ed t he f ront o f a pickup [t he T ho m as pi ckup ], a n d the p e o p le tha t wa s tur n ing le ft w a s d riv ing e x tre m e ly slo w a c ro ss th e hig h w a y.
He te sti fi e d th e Do ug he rt y tr a c tor hit the Mo ra le s c ar at the re ar o n th e pa sse ng e r s ide and sp un it

aro un d. Th e Vo lvo tr a c tor the n ti pp e d o ve r o n it s si de . M or a le s wa s abl e to d ri ve he r M e rc ur

y to her home in Athens afte r a f lat tire wa s replac ed. No one involved r equire d medical attention at the scene

. The jury found no neg lige nce on the part of D oug herty and Mabe

.

C HA R GE E RROR In her f irst issue, Morales insists that the trial court rever sibly err ed in includinginstructions or def initions in its charg e per

taining to c ontributory

neg lige nce, una

voidable ac cident, and sudde n
e me rg e nc y . M or a le s argue s th at th e e vid e nc e wa s insu ff ic ie nt to ra ise the se iss ue s. Ho we ve r, on ly an instruction on sudden e merg ency was a ctually

included in the cha

rg e.3

Stand ard of Review The trial c ourt’s d ecision t o include an instruc tion in it s char g e is revie wed f or abuse of discretion. Dew v. Crown Der r i ck E r ec to rs, Inc. , 208 S.W .3d 448, 456 (Tex. 2006). “I f an ins tr uc tio n mi g ht a id t

he jur y in a ns we ri ngthe iss ue s pr e se nte d to t he m, o r i f t

he re is a ny su pp or t in the evidenc e for an instruction, the instruction is proper .” Louisian a-Pacif ic Corp. v. Knigh ten , 976 S.W .2d 674, 676 (Tex. 1998). Any err or re g ardi n g a re quested instruction is not reve rsible er ror unless it was rea sonably

calc ulated to ca

use and pr ob ably

did cause the re ndition of an improper judgme nt. Id. ; see also T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 44.1(a)

. Appli cable Law To war rant the submission of an instruction on sudden emer g ency , there must be evidenc e that (1) a n emer g ency

situation arose suddenly

and unexpectedly , (2) the emer g ency situation was not cause d by

the defendant’s neg lige nce, and (3) after the emer g ency

situation arose, the de fenda nt acte d as a person of ordinary prudenc e would have acte d. Thom as v. Oldham , 895 S.W .2d 352, 360 (T e x. 19 95 ); Mc

Do nal d T ra nsit , I nc . v . M oo re , 565 S .W .2 d 4 3, 44 -4 5 ( Te x. 19 78 ). I f t he re is conflictingevidenc e re g ardingthese e lements, the trial cour t sho u ld s u b mi t t h e r e quested instruction. De Le on v . P ickens , 933 S.W .2d 286, 294 (Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 1996, writ denied) (inclusion of ins tr uc tio n o n s ud de n e me rg e nc y do e s n ot c on sti tut e e rr or wh e n th e e vid e nc e c on fl ict s as to wh e the r t he de fe nd ant’ s a c ti on s p ri or to t he e me rg e nc y

we re su sp e c t) ; Oldham v. Thom as , 864 S.W .2d 121, 127 (Tex. App.–Houston [14t h Dist.] 1993), rev’d in part on o t h er grounds , 895 S.W. 2d 35 2 ( Te x. 19 95 ). Th e e vid e nc e ne e d only ra ise a fa c t issu e re g ard ing e a c h of the e le me nts of sudden e merg ency
. Jordan v. Sava , 222 S.W .3d 840, 848 (Tex. App.–Houston [1s t Dist.] 2007, no pet.). An ac t of nature i s not a pre requisite for a sudden e merg ency
. Id

. Actions by

other ve hicles

can cause a sudden emer g ency
. See DeLe on , 933 S.W .2d at 294. In Re inha rt v . Young , 906 S.W .2d 471 (Tex. 1995), the supre me court found no err or i n the submission of both an unavoidable a ccide nt and a sudde n emer g ency i n s t ru ct i on wher e the f acts showe d the def

endant dr iver re ar e nded a c ar stopped on the blind side of an ove rpass. Id. at 474. A sudden e merg ency instruction was prope r when ther e wa s evidenc e that the driver whose a utomobile struck a ca

r par ked on the shoulder

of the

ro a d w a s tr ave lin garo un d a c ur ve jus t be fo re the a c c ide nt a nd ha d be e n bli nd e d b y

the he a dli g hts4

of an onc oming c ar. Boun ds v. Scurlock Oil Co. , 730 S.W. 2d 68 , 70- 71 (T e x. Ap p. –Co rp us Chr ist i 1987, writ ref

’d n.r.e .). Discussion Mo ra le s c a lle d Ch arl e s Warr e n to te sti fy . Wa rr e n w a s the dr ive r o f t

he e ig hte e n whe e le r i n fr on t of Do ug he rt y and fr om his c a

b und ou bte dly ha d th e be st v ie w o f t

he c ir c ums tanc e s le a din gto the ac cident, the a ccide nt itself, and i ts afte rmath. He told the j ury that he topped a sm all hill to find

a c ar w itha

pic ku p b e hin d it , b oth

sto pp e d in

the ro a dw ay . H e imm e diate ly st art ed pump inghis brake s and brought his tractor-tr ailer to a stop behind the picku p
. Be ca u s e o f the pre sence of Warren’ s truck, Dougherty could not see that the car and pickup had come to a complete stop, nor did he have the ava ila

ble dis tanc e fo r s top pin gthat Warr e n h a d. War re n testi fi e d th at D ou g he rt y
came over the hill “and there we all sat.” I t appea red to Warr en that Dougherty was doingever

y thing he could to avoid a

collision. Warren’ s testimony alone is suf ficient to r aise the issue of sudden emer g enc y . Ho we v er, Mo ra le s c on te nd s the su bmi ssi on of the su dd e n e me rg e nc y ins tr uc tio n wa s imp rop er be cau se Doug herty

and Mabe had not pleade d sudden eme rg ency as an a ffirmative defe nse. Sudden emer g ency

is not an aff

irmat i v e d ef

ense that must be pleaded, but an inf ere ntial rebuttal. See Dillard v. Tex. Elec. Coop. , 1 57 S.W .3d 429, 433-34 (Te x . 2005). An infe rential rebuttal is a theory that opera tes to r ebut an essential element of the plaintiff’s ca se by provingthe truth of other f

acts. See Eric ks on v

. D e ay ala , 627 S.W. 2d

47 5, 47 8- 79 (T e x. Ap p. –Co rp us Chr ist i 1981, no writ). “T hus, by

infere nce, the plaintiff’s factual theory is rebutted or defe ated.” Id. at 478. An af firmative de fense , on the other ha nd, does not tend to rebut the f acts of the plaintiff’s ca se, but show an indepe ndent re ason why the plaintiff should not rec over e ven if a l l t h e el em ents of the plaintiff’s case are proven. See Moult on v. Alam o Am bulan ce Serv ice, Inc. , 414 S.W .2d 444, 448 (Tex. 1967). Doug herty

and Mabe ’s g ener al denial was a suff icient pleadingto support the submissi on of the sudd en emerg ency

instruction. See Bul

s v. Fuselier , 5 5 S. W. 3 d 2 0 4 , 2 1 1

- 1 2 ( T e x. Ap p. –T e xar

ka na 20 01 , n o p e t.) ; Erickson , 627 S.W .2d at 478; Mo. Pac. R . R . C o . v. United Transports

, Inc. , 518 S.W .2d 904, 910 (Tex. App.–Houston [1s t Dist.] 1975, writ ref ’d n.r.e .). There are case s that appea r to requir e that an infere ntial r ebuttal instruction be supported by5

an af firmative plea ding. See, e .g., Reid v. Bes t W a s te S yst ems , Inc. , 8 0 0 S. W. 2 d

6 4 4 , 6 4 6 ( T e x. Ap p. –H ou sto n [14 th D ist .] 19 90 , wri t de nie d) ; Ch a rter O a k Fi r eI ns . Co . v . T aylor , 6 58 S.W .2d 22 7, 22 8- 29 (T e x. Ap p. –H ou sto n [1s t D ist .] 19 83 , n o wri t) . We are c onvin c e d, ho we ve r, that th e se
case s repr esent a

depar ture fr om Texas law as it has deve loped since the 1973 amendment of Texas R u l e o f C i v i l P ro ce d

ure 2 7 7 t o p ro v i d e t h ati n fe re n t i al re b u t t al s s h al l n o tb e s u b m i t t edi nth e c h ar ge as questions but as instructions or definitions. See Buls , 5 5 S. W.3 d at 21 0- 12 ; see also T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 277. The trial c ourt did not abuse its discret i o n i n submitt ing the challeng ed instruction. Morales’ s first issue is overrule d.

E V IDE N C E O F H E AL T H I NS URANCE In h e r s e c on d is su e , M or a le s c omp la ins t hat the tr ia l c ourt c omm itt e d r e ve rs ibl e e rr or in admitting evide nce of

Morales’ s health insuranc e. Stand ard of Review A trial cour

t’s decision to admit or exclude evidenc e is revie wed for abuse of discre tion. City of Browns ville v. Alvarado , 897 S.W .2d 750, 753 (Tex. 1995). An appellate court must uphol d the trial court’ s ruling if it has any leg itimate basis. Sta te

Bar of Te x. v . Ev ans , 774 S.W .2d 656, 658

n. 5 ( Te x. 19 89 ). Th e c ourt sh ou ld no t re ve rs e a tr ia l c ourt fo r a n e rr on e ou s e vid e nti ary

ru lin gun le ss the er ror pr obably

cause d the re ndition of an improper judg ment. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 4 4

. 1 ( a )

. In makingthat deter

mination, the appellate c ourt shoul d re v i ew the entire rec ord. Alvarado , 897 S.W .2d at 754. Appli cable Law The co ll ate r a l s o ur c e r

u le p r e c lu d e s a

to rtf e a s o r f r o m o b ta in in gth e b e n e f

it o f , o r even mentioning, pa

y ments to the injured par

ty from sourc es other tha

n the tortfea sor. T

a y lor v . Am . Fabritech, In c. , 132 S.W .3d 613, 626 (Tex. A pp.–Houston [14t h Dist.] 2004, pet. denied) . I f the pla int if f c la ims fi nan cia l hards hip , h ow e ve r, e vid e nc e of a c oll ate ra l so ur c e may

be of fe re d to i m p ea ch the plaintiff’s c redibility

. Mun dy v. Shippers, Inc. , 7 8 3 S. W. 2 d 7 4 3 , 7 4 5 ( T e x. App.–Houston [14th Dis t.] 1990, writ denied)

.6

Discussion Ros a Mo ra le s bla

me d he r la c k o f m on e y

fo r h e r f a ilure to s e e k me dic a l tr e atme nt p ro mpt ly afte r the a ccide nt and for he r six y ear avoidanc e of a

$50,000 back o p er ati on she cla imed was

nece ssary
. She claimed an inability to pa y medical bills to four differ ent providers of medica l car e. The e vidence shows Rosa Morales ha d Cigna health insuranc e c overa g e and Cig na had alre ady paid seve ral thousand dollar s to health ca re pr oviders on her

behalf

. M o ra l es ’s p l eao f

p o v e rty b e g anw i thh e r

at t o r n e y ’ s o p e n i n gs t at e m e n tan d c o n t i nu ed

t hro u gh her direc t, c ross, and redire ct examination. Her testimony opened the door to pr oof o f c ollatera l

source s of pay

ment for he r medica l bil l s
. The trial c ourt did not err in a dmitti ngevidenc e of he r health insuranc e cove rag e. Mora les’s sec ond issue is overrule d.

F A C TUA L S UF F I CI E NCY In her la st issue, Morales contends the ve rdict wa s contrar y to the overwhelming w eig ht of the e vid e nc e and

is m a nif e stl y un jus t. Stand ard of Review A par ty attackingthe fa ctual suff iciency of an a dverse finding on an is sue on which she has the burde n of proof

must demonstrat e that the a dverse finding is ag ainst the g reat weig ht and preponde ranc e of the evidenc e. Do w Chem. Co. v . Franc is , 46 S.W .3d 237, 242 (Tex. 2001).

T h e c o u rt o f ap p e a ls m u st c o n sid e r an d w e igh a ll o f the e v id e n c e , a n d c a n se t a sid e a ve rd ic t o n ly i f t h e ev i den ce i s s o we ak or i f t h e f i n di n g i s s o ag ai n s t t h e g r ea t we i g h t an d pr epon der an ce of t he evi dence t hat i t i s cl ear l y wr ong a nd un j us t

. I n do i ng s o, t he cour t of appeal s mus t “ det ai l t he evi dence r el eva nt t o t he i s s ue” and “ s t at e i n wha t r ega r d t he cont r ar y evi dence gr eat l y out wei gh s t he evi dence i n s up p o rt of t he verdict

. ” (ci t at i o ns o m i t t ed ).

Id. Doug herty

came over the cre st of a hill to find a trac tor-tra iler in f ront of him. Obscured by Charles Warr en’s e ighte en whe ele r, the Morale s car was wa iting at the bottom of the hill for the oncoming traff

ic to c lear so she could make a lef t turn onto a county

road. Char les Warre n, in the cab of his eig hteen whe eler , was in the be st positi on to observe what transpired. Rosa Mora les, he observe d, was slow to start her turn afte r the tra ffic clear ed and slow in ex ecutingit. W arr en did not7

expect to stop at all beca

use t he oncoming traffic had passed. Meanwhile, Doug herty came over the hill “and there we we re.” Warren be lieved that Dougherty did ev er y

thing he could to avoid the collision. Doug herty and Mabe argue that it was reasona ble for the j ury

to find that Morales’ s failure to promptly

execute her

intended lef

t turn, an d t h e l i m i t ed dis tance from the c rest of the hill on Hig hway 19 to County

Road 3718, coupled with the prese nce of the Thomas pic kup and Warre n’s eig hteen whe eler

filling that spac e, cr eate d a sudden e merg ency . We ag ree
. Th e jur y ’s ve rd ic t w a s n ot s o a g a ins t th e g re at w e ig ht a nd pr e po nd e ra

nc e that it i s c le arl y wrongand unjust. Morales’ s third issue is overruled.

D I S P OS I T I ON Th e jud g me nt o f t

he tr ia l c ourt

is affirm ed

.



### BI LL BASS J ustice

Opinion delivere d J uly

31, 2008. P a n e l co n siste d

of W o rth e n , C .J

., H o y le , J., a n d

B a ss, R e tiredJ

u stice , T w e lfth C o u rt o

f Ap p e a ls, T y le r, sitt ing by as sig n m e n t.

(PUBL I SH)