1 ... S eeTe x. R. App . P. 47. 4. 

## COURT OFAPPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOF TEXAS FORT WORTH
NO. 2 - 0 9 - 0 1 7 - CV DE B OR AH F R AZ I E R AP P E L L ANT V . W ESLEY RO D EN A PPELL EE

----- ----- -- FR O M CO UN TY CO URT AT LAW NO . 2 O F DENTO N CO UN TY

----- ----- -- 

### MEMORANDU M OPI NI ON 1

----- ----- -- I. I NTR ODUC TI ON A ppe l l antD ebo r ah Fr az i er ap peal s a t ak e- not hi ng j udgm enti n f avo rof A p p e l l e e W e sleyR o d e n f o ll o w i n g a j u ry tri a l i n a c a r ac c i d e n t ca se . I n tw o i ss ues , F r azi er ar gue s t hatt he t r i al co urter r ed by i ncl udi ng a n i ns t r uct i on on “e m er gen cy”i n t he j ur y c har ge and t hatt he j ur y’ s ver di cti s con t r adi ct or y a nd
s h o u l d b e s e t a s i d e . W e w i l l a ffir m .2 II . F ACTUA LAN DP ROCEDURALB AC KG ROUND A . Roden’ s V er si on oft he A cc i den t Rod e n t e s t i f i e d t ha ton Fr i da y, A pr i l 15, 2005, he w a s dr i vi ng a F or d 250 t r ucknort h on I nt er st at e 35E a nd w aspul l i ng a t r ai l erw i t h a hor sei n i t . The dr i vi ng con di t i ons w er e cl earand dr y. Tr af f i c w as sl ow i ng and st art i ng t o get bum pert o bum per . H e w as t r avel i ng atonl y t w ent y t o t w ent y- f i ve m i l es per hour , f ol l ow i ng a dum p t r uckt hatw asappr oxi m at el y t w ent y- f i ve f ee ti n f r ont o fh i m. R o d e n h a d b e e n tr a v e l i n g i n th e ri g h t- h a n d l a n e for a p p rox i m a tel ytw e n ty
m i l esw hen Fr az i er ’ s veh i cl e e nt er ed hi s l anef r om t he l eft , pul l i ng i n f r ontof h i m . R o d e n i m m e d i a tel yb rak e d an d turn e d h i s s tee rin g w h e e l to th e ri g h t t o avo i d hi t t i ng F r az i er , buthe bum ped t he bac k of h erve hi cl e, m ak i ng m i nor contactw i t h t he passenger
- si de t ai l l i ght. R oden ’ s t r uck suf f er ed no dam age. H e t est i f i e d t ha t Fr a z i e r s a i d t ha t s he w a s f i ne a nd t ha t s he t ol d t he pol i ce at th e s c e n e th a t s h e w a s n o t i n j u re d . Roden t es t i f i ed t hatt her e w as not hi ng he cou l d hav e d one t o pr eve ntt he
a c c i d e n t. H e sa i d tha t i f he h a d j e rke d the ste e ri n g w h e e l h a rde r t o the ri g h t, h e p r o b a b ly w o u ld h a v e ja c k -k n if e d a n d f lip p e d h is t r u c ka n d t r a ile r . R o d e n s a id t hath e d i d ever yt hi ng he cou l d t o avoi d bum pi ng Fr azi er ’ s vehi cl e; he f el tl i ke F ra z i e r s h o u l d n o t h a v e tu rn e d i n to h i s l a n e .3

B. Fr az i er ’ s V er si on oft he A cc i den t F raz i e r t e sti fi e d tha t sh e w a s tr a v e l i n g n o rt h o n In tersta te 3 5 E i n the ri g h thand l ane. She d eni ed chang i ng l anes in fr o n tofRo den. Fr azi ersai d t hatas tra ffic s l o w e d a n d s t a r t e d to b a c ku p , sh e w a s b e h i n d a n e i g h te e n -w h e e l e r. Fr az i ers ai d t hatshe l ooked i n he rr ea r - vi ew m i r r oran d s aw Roden co m i ng t ow ar ds he rata hi gh r at e o fs pee d. Fr az i ersai d t hatshe coul d notm ove t o t he l eftbecause t her e w as a carther e. Fr azi ersai d t hatR oden h i th eran d t hatt hey b o th m o v e d to th e s h o u l d e r. Fr az i e r c l a i m e d t h a t s h e t o l d t h e p o l i c e t h a t h e r l e f t g r o i n , k n e e, an d
a n k le , a s w e ll a s h e rn e c k , w e r e s o r e . S h e s o u g h tt r e a t m e n tf r o m h e rf a m ily doc t oron t he M onda y f ol l ow i ng t he Fr i dayac ci den t . Fr az i er ’ s f am i l y do ct or r ef er r ed hert o A dvanced Physi cal Th er apy. Fr azi eral so under w entan M R I , m et
w i t h an ort hop edi c sur geon , and sough tchi rop ract i c car e. Fr azi er ’ s m edi cal bi l l s t ot al ed $10 , 241 . 72. O n c r os s- exa m i nat i on, Fr az i erad m i t t ed t hatal l t he i m agi ng s t udi esha d be ni gn f i ndi ngsan d t hatt he M RI i ndi ca t ed so m e d e g e n e rati on i n herneck. Fr azi eral so adm i t t ed t hatshe had t ol d t he pol i ce di sp at ch t hatt her e w er e n o i nj ur i esasa r es ul toft he ac ci den t , t hatno am bul anc e c a m e t o t h e s c e n e , a n d t h a th e rd o c t o rh a s n o tp l a c e d a ny r est r i ct i ons on her act i vi t i es.4

C . Jury C har ge and V er di ct O verFr azi er ’ s obj ec t i on, t he t r i al co urti ncl ude d a n “ em er gen cy” i nst r uct i on i n it s c h a rge t o t he j ur y. U l t i m at el y, t he j ur y r et ur ned a ver di ct f i ndi ng nei t he rFr azi ernorRo den neg l i gent and aw ar di ng Fr azi er$4 16 i n past
m edi ca l ex pen se s. The t r i al co urts i gne d a t ake- not hi ng j udgm enti n f avo rof Roden, s t at i ng t hati tap pea r ed t hatt he j ur y’ s ver di ctw asf or R od en and aga i ns tFr az i er . Thi s app ea l f ol l ow ed.

II I. E M ERGENCYI NST RUC TI ONW ASP ROPER I n he rf i r sti ss ue, Fr az i erar gue s t hat t he t r i al co urtab us ed i t s di sc r et i on by i ncl udi ng t he f ol l ow i ng em er gency i nst r uct i on i n t he j ur y char ge: I fa per so n i s con f r ont ed by a n “ em er gen cy”ar i si ng s udde nl y a nd une xpe ct edl y, w hi ch w asnotpr oxi m at el y c aus ed by a ny negl i gence on hi s partand w hi ch, t o a r easonabl e per son, r equi r es i m m edi at e act i on w i t hou t t i m e f ordel i ber at i on, hi s conduct i n such an em er gency i s notnegl i gence orf ai l ur e t o use or di nar y car e i f, a fte r s u c h e m e rg e n c ya r is e s , h e a c ts a s a p e rs o n o f o rd i n a ry pr uden ce w oul d h a v e act ed und ert he sam e orsi m i l ar c i rc u m s ta n c e s . Fr az i erar gue s t hats ubm i ss i on oft hi s i ns t r uct i on con st i t ut ed er r or bec aus e n o evi den ce ex i st ed t hatR ode n l ac ke d t i m e f ordel i ber at i on bef or e he t ookac t i on. T o w a rra n t th e s u b m i s s i o n o f a n i n s tru c ti o n o n s u d d e n e m e rg e n c y , th e re m us t be evi den ce t hat ( 1) an em er gen cy si t uat i on ar os e su dde nl y and
u n e x p e c te d l y , (2 ) th e e m e rg e n c y s i tu a ti o n w a s n o t c a u s e d b y th e d e fe n d a n t’s5

negl i gence, and (3 ) af t ert he em er gency si t uat i on ar ose, t he def endan tact ed
a s a p e rs o n o f o rd i n a ryp ru d e n c e w o u l d h a v e a c te d . Th om as v. O ldham , 895 S .W .2 d 3 5 2 , 3 6 0 (T e x . 1 9 9 5 ); Mc D o n a ld T ra n sit, I n c . v. Mo o re , 565 S . W . 2d 43 , 44 –4 5 ( Tex . 19 78 ) . I fev i dence exi st s r ai si ng a facti ssue r egar di ng t hese
e l e m e n ts , th e tri a l c o u rt s h o u l d s u b m i t th e re q u e s te d i n s tru c ti o n . Jordanv. Sava, I nc. , 222 S . W . 3d 840, 848 ( Tex. A pp. — H ous t on [ 1stD i st . ] 2007 , no p e t.); D eL eonv. Pi

ckens , 9 3 3 S .W .2 d 2 8 6 , 2 9 4 ( T e x . A p p .— C o rpu s C h ri sti 199 6, w r i tde ni ed) . Act i onsby ot hervehi cl esm ay cr ea t e a s udde n e m er gen cy. See DeLe on , 933 S. W . 2d a t294. W e r evi ew t he t r i al court ’ s deci si o n t o i ncl ude a sudden em er gency i n s tru c ti o n i n i ts c h a rg e fo r a n a b u s e o f d i s c re ti o n . S ee D ewv. Crown D er r i ck Erectors, I

nc. , 2 0 8 S .W .3 d 4 4 8 , 4 5 6 (T e x . 2 0 0 6 ). “ Ifa n in s t r u c t io n m ig h ta id th e ju r yin a n s w e ri n g th e i s s u e s p re s e n te d to th e m , o r i f th e re i s a n ys u p p o rt i n t he evi dence f oran i nst r uct i on, t he i nst r uct i on i s pr oper . ” L o uisia n a -Pa cif ic Cor p. v. K ni ghten , 9 7 6 S .W .2 d 6 7 4 , 6 7 6 (T e x . 1 9 9 8 ). Fr azi erf ocuses on t he por t i on of t he j ur y char ge def i ni ng an em er gency ass om et hi ng that

requi resi m m edi ate acti on without

ti m e f or del i ber ati onan d
ar gue s t hat Roden’ s t es t i m ony— t hat i f he had j er ke d t he st ee r i ng w hee l t o t he
r i ght , he pr oba bl y w oul d ha ve j ac k- kni f ed and f l i ppe d hi s t r uck a nd tr a i l e r— e sta b l i sh e s th a t R o d e n d i d h a v e ti m e to d e l i b e rate . F raz i e r arg u e s th a t,2 ... T h e re c o r d re v e a ls t h a tR o d e n g a v e t h a ta n s w e r — t h a th e p r o b a b ly

w oul d have j ac k-k ni f ed and f l i ppe d hi s t r uckan d t r ai l er — i n r es pons e t o t he fo l l o w i n g q u e sti o n fr o m p l a i n ti ff’ s c o u n se l at tri a l : “Ify o u h a d ju s t je rk e d i t, w hatw oul d have hap pened ?” 6 i n l i ghtt hi s del i ber at i on by R od en , n o e m er gen cy occ ur r ed and t hatt he
em er gen cy i ns t r uct i on s houl d notha ve bee n s ubm i t t ed. Roden, how eve r , di d nott es t i f y t hathe had t i m e t o del i ber at e o rt hathe d i d d e l i b e rate p ri o r t o the ac c i d e n t. 2I n s te a d , R o d e n te s ti fi e d th a t F ra z i e r’s
ve hi c l e e nt e r e d hi s l a nef r om t hel e f ta nd t ha th e “ i m m e di a t e l y pu to n [ hi s] b ra k e s , a n d . . . tu rn e d th e w h e e l to th e ri g h t to tryto a v o i d h i ttin g h e r.” R oden t est i f i ed t hathe di d not see Fr azi er ’ s veh i cl e unt i l she cam e i nt o hi s l ane. Roden agr ee d t hatt her e w asnot hi ng h e cou l d ha ve donet o pr eve ntt he acci dent f r om occur r i ng othert han no tbe t her e. T h is t e s t im o n yb yR o d e n , a s w e ll a s t h e o t h e re v id e n c e in t r o d u c e d a tt r ia l,
ra i s e s a t l e a s t a n i s s u e o ff a c to n e v e rye l e m e n t o f s u d d e n e m e rg e n c y . S ee D eL eon , 9 3 3 S .W .2 d a t 2 9 4 ; se e al so Carter v. Hel

i cop ter A m bul

anc e Serv. of N. Tex. , I

nc . , N o. 05- 95- 004 68- C V , 1996 W L 403987 , a t* 5 ( Tex. A p p .— D a l l a s J u l y1 9 , 1 9 9 6 , w ri t d e n i e d ) (n o t d e s i g n a te d fo r p u b l i c a ti o n ). C ons equ ent l y, t he t r i al co urtdi d notab us e i t s di sc r et i on bys ubm i t t i ng t he
s u d d e n e m e rg e n c yi n s tru c ti o n . See DeLe on , 933 S . W . 2d at288, 294 ( hol di ng t hatt r i al courtpr oper l y subm i t t ed sudden em er g e ncy i nst r uct i on w hen3 ... The c as esci t ed by F r az i erdi d noti nvol ve con f l i ct i ng e vi den ce r ai si ng

an i ssue off acton every el em entofsudden em er gency l i ke t he evi dence her e; th e re fo re , th o s e c a s e sa re n o t c o n tro l l i n g . See Devi neyv. McL endon , 496 S .W .2 d 1 6 1 , 1 6 3 , 1 6 6 (T e x . C i v . A p p .— B e a u m o n t 1 9 7 3 , w ri t re f’d n .r.e .) ( hol di ng sudd en em er gency i nst r uct i on er r oneo us w hen bo t h part i es t est i f i ed t hatdef end antr ea r - end ed pl ai nt i f f ’ s ca r , w hi ch w ass t oppe d on Loo p 410, an d n o e v i d e n c e w a s p re s e n te d ra i s i n g s u d d e n e m e rg e n c y ); Pe tty v. Ch i ldren ’s Wor ld Lear ni ng Ctrs., Inc. , No. 05- 94- 00998

- CV , 1995 W L3795 22, a t*4 ( Tex. A pp. — D al l asM ay 31, 199 5, w r i t den i ed) ( not des i gna t ed f orpubl i ca t i on) ( hol di ng sudd en em er gency i nst r uct i on er r oneo us b uthar m l ess w hen evi dence s h o w e d o n l yth a t th i rd p a rty ’s c o n d u c t w a s s o l e p ro x i m a te c a u s e o f a c c i d e n t). 7 con f l i ct i ng t es t i m ony exi st ed r ega r di ng w het herde f end antw asf ol l ow i ng pl ai nt i f f ’ s vehi cl e t oo cl ose l y and r ear - ended pl ai nt i f f ’ s vehi cl e orw het her
n e g l i g e n c e o f t ruc kd ri v e r crea te d su d d e n em e rge n c yca u sing d e fen d a n t t o s w e rv e i n to p l a i n ti ff’s l a n e a n d re a r-e n d h e r v e h i c l e ). 3W e o v e rru l e F r a z i e r’s f i r sti ssue. IV . W AI VE R OFC OMPLAI NTT HATJ URYV ERDIC TW ASC ONT RA DI CT ORY I n hersecond i ssue, Fr azi erar gues t hatt he jury ’s ver di ctw as c o n tra d i c to ryb e c a u s e th e j u ryfo u n d th a t n e it h e r F ra z i e r n o r R o d e n w e re negl i gent yetaw ar ded Fr azi er$ 41 6 f orp astm edi cal care. I ft he j ur y’ s ver di ct i s “ i n c o m p l e te , o r n o t re s p o n s i v e to th e q u e s ti o n s c o n ta i n e d i n t h e c o u r t’s cha r ge, ort he ans w er s t o t he que st i ons ar e i n c onf l i ct , t he cou rts hal l i n w r i t i ng i nst r uctt he j ur y i n open courtoft he na tu re oft he i ncom pl et eness, unr esponsi veness, orconf l i ct , pr ovi de t he j ur y such addi t i onal i nst r uct i ons as8

m ay be pr oper , and r et i r e t he j ur y f orf urt herdel i ber at i ons. ” S eeTex. R. Ci v. P. 2 95. Fr az i erdi d notr ai seany cont ent i on c onc er ni ng c onf l i ct i ng j ur y f i ndi ngs i n t he t r i al cou rt bef or e t he j ur y w as di sc har ged , so t he t r i al cou rt di d notha ve t he opport uni t y t o pr ovi de t he j ur y s uch ad di t i ona l i ns t r uct i onsasm ay hav e been pr operand t he j ur y di d n o t h a v e the op port uni t y t o r et i r e f orf urt her d e lib e r a t io n s . A c c o r d in g ly , b e c a u s e F r a z ie r d id n o t a d v is e t h e t r ia l c o u rto ft h is al l eged con f l i cti n t he j ur y’ s ver di ct , t hi s i ssue i s not pr eserved f orourr evi ew . S eeTe x. R. Ci v. P. 295; Kennedy Shi p & Rep ai

r , L. P. v. Pham , 210 S. W . 3d 11, 2 4 (T e x . A p p .— H o u s to n [1 4 th D i s t.] 2 0 0 6 , n o p e t.); K itchen v. Frusher, 1 81 S .W . 3 d 4 6 7 , 4 7 3 ( T ex . A pp . — Fo rt W ort h 2 0 0 5 , no pe t . ) ( op . on re h ’g ); Colum bi

a Med. C tr. of

Las Co l

i nas v. Bush , 122 S . W . 3 d 8 3 5, 861 ( Tex. A p p .— F o rt W o rth 2 0 0 3 , p e t. d e n i e d ). Fr azi erar gues i n herr epl y br i eft hatt he T exas Su pr em e C ourthas never
a p p l i e d th e w a i v e r o r p re s e rv a ti o n d o c tri n e to a p u rp o rte d c o n f li c t i n j u ry f i ndi ngsan d t hatca se s hol di ng t hatw ai verofan al l ege d con f l i ct i n j ur y f i ndi ngs o c c u r s ifa p a r t yf a i l s t o o bje c tt o t h e p u r p o rt e d c o n f lic tb e f o r e t h e ju r yis di sc har ged ar e e r r one ousand notw el l
- f ounde d. Fr az i ert r ac esca se s app l yi ng t hi s w ai ver doc t r i ne and cl ai m s t hatt heyar e n otw el l
- r ea so ned . How eve r , t he
or i gi n oft hi s w ai verdoct r i ne i s Texas R ul e ofC i vi l Pr ocedu r e 29 5, w hi ch w as p ro m u l g a te d b y th e T e x a s S u p re m e C o u rt. S eeT e x . R . C iv . P . 2 9 5 . T h a tru le9

re q u i re s th e tri a l c o u rt to p ro v i d e i n s tru c ti o n s t o t h e j u rya n d re q u i re s th e j u ry to re d e l i b e ra te i n th e e v e n t o fc o n f lic t in g a n s w e rs i n th e i r v e rd i c t. S e ei d. A t r i al courtcannot com pl y w i t h R ul e 29 5 unl ess i t know s t hata part y bel i eves t he j ury h as ret urne d c on f l i cti ng an sw ers i n i t s ve r di ct. C on seq ue n tl y , w e decl i ne Fr azi er ’ s i nvi t at i on t o r evi si texi st i ng case l aw r equi r i ng a part y t o obj ect i n t he t r i al co urtt o a n a l l ege d con f l i ct i n t he j ur y’ s ver di cti n or dert o pr es erve t hati ssue f orappel l at e r evi ew . F in a lly , in a n ye v e n t , n o c o n f lic te x is t s in t h e ju r y ’s v e r d ic t . F r a z ie rc la im s a f at al conf l i ctex i st s betw een t he j ur y’ s f ai l ur e to f i nd ei t herRo den orFr azi er negl i gent i n Q uest i on N o. 1 ( by answ er i ng “no” as t o both Fr azi erand R oden i n t he l i abi l i t y ques t i on) and t he j ur y’ s ans w ert o Q ues t i on No. 3 ( t he dam age que st i on) aw ar di ng F r az i er$416 i n pa stm edi ca l ex pen se s. ButQ ues t i on No. 3, the dam age quest i on, w as no tco ndi t i onal l y subm i t t ed; t he j ur y w as r equi r ed to a n s w e r i t re g a rd l e s s o f i ts a n s w e r to Q u e s ti o n N o . 1 . See Tur ner v. Preci si on Sur gi c a l , L . L . C. , 274 S. W . 3d 245, 249 ( Te x. App . — Hous t on [ 1s tDi s t . ] 2008 , n o p e t.) (ex p l a i n i n g th a t a j u ry q u e s ti o n i s c o n d i ti o n a l l y s u b m i tte d w h e n th e j u ry i s i nst r uct ed t o answ ert he quest i on con t i ngen tupon i t s answ ert o som e ot her quest i on) . Becau se t he j ur y w as r equi r ed t o answ erQ uest i on N o. 3 r egar dl ess o f i ts a n s w e r to Q u e s ti o n N o . 1 , n o c o n fl i c t e x i s ts i n th e j u ry ’s v e rd i c t; th e j u ry si m pl y f ound t hatt he ac ci den tw asnotpr oxi m at el y c aus ed by F r az i erorby10

Roden and t hatRoden s us t ai ned pa stm edi ca l exp ens esof$416 asa r es ul tof th e a c c i d e n t th a t w a s n o t e i th e r p a rty ’s fa u l t. See, e. g. , Ca s ua ltyUn derwriters
v. Rh one, 1 3 4 T e x . 5 0 , 5 4 , 1 3 2 S . W .2 d 9 7 , 9 9 (1 9 3 9 ) ( e x p la in in g , “ [i] tw ill
nev e r b e p r e s u m e d t h a t j u r o r s i n t e n d t o r e t u r n c o n f l i c t i n g a n s w e r s , butt he pres um pt i on i s al w ayst o t he con t r ary. Court s pr ope r l y r ef us e t o s t r i ke dow n answ er s on t he gr oun d ofconf l i ct , i ft her e i s any r easonabl e basi s upon w hi ch th e ym a yb e re c o n c i l e d ” ). W e t her ef or e over r ul e Fr azi er ’ s second i ssue. V . C ONC L USI ON H avi ng ov er r ul ed both of Fr azi er ’ s i ssues, w e af f i r m t he t r i al court ’ s t akenot hi ng j udgm enti n f avo rofRoden .

SU E W A LKER J U S T I C E PA N EL: DA U PH I N O T, G A RD N ER, an d W A LKER, JJ.
DEL I VERE D: Oct ob e r22, 2009