L ow ry se ttl e d w iththe Cur

tis fa mil y pr ior to t ri a l. 1 The Curtis family ’s motion for leave to file its supplemental letter brie f is g rante d. 2 

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

NO. 03-0 7 -00 437 -CV
Hyd e P ar k Bap ti stChu r c h, A ppe lla nt

v. Tar a Tur ne r and T e r r y C ur ti s, Indi vid ual ly a nd as ne xtfri e nds

of P.C., a m inor, Appellees

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 353RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. D-1- GN-05- 0004 95 , HO NORAB LE STEP HEN Y ELENOSK Y , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N
T u r n e r an d C u rt i s , i n d i v i d

u a l l y an d a s n e x tf r i e n d s o f t h e i r s o n , P
. C
. , ( c o l l e c t i v e l y, the “Curtis family ”), br oug ht suit aga inst Hy de Park B aptist Church (“H y de Park” ) and a Hy de Park employ ee, Sue L owry , alleg ing that P.C. had be en phy sically , emotionally , and ver bally abused by L owry over a period of six mont hs while enr olled in Hy de Park’ s day car e prog ram. The jury found that L ow ry int e nti on a lly inj ur e d P.C. and that H y de Pa

rk ’s ne g lig e nc e c on tr ibute d to his inj ur ie s. 1 On appe al, Hy de Park a

rg ues that the trial c ourt err ed in allowing damag e aw ards f or future mental
anguis h a nd futur e me dic a l e xpe ns e s a nd that th e jur

y ’s a llo c a tio n o f c omp ara tiv e re sp on sibili ty b e tw e e nL o w r

y an d H y d e Pa r k w a s a g a in s t t

h e g r e a t w e ig h t a

n d p r e p o n d e r an c e o f

th e e v id e n c e . We
a ff ir m th e tr ia l c ourt ’s jud g me nt o n th e ve rd ic t. 2Wh il e H y d e Pa r k to o k th e p o s it io na t t

r ia l t h a t t h e a c t w a s n o t i n te n ti o n a l, th e ju ry 3 unanimously

found that L owry

acte d intentionally
. J ohnson’s notes documenting her conversation with Miller wer e entered into evidence a nd 4 included the f

ollowing statement: “Shelly descr ibed staff

member ( Sue [L owry ]) bumping childre n w/hip and putting he r foot out ca using c hild to trip. Has been witnesse d by her. N ot alway s the same c hild but is awa

re that [ P.C.] most often aff ecte d.” 2 BACK GR OUND P.C. ’s pa re nts e nr oll e d h im a t Hyde Park ’s da y c are c e nte r in Ap ri l 20 04 , w he n P. C.
was a littl e over a y ear old. I n Aug ust 2004, P.C. was placed in a toddler cla ss, for which L owry was the lead te ache r. The Curtis family prese nted evidenc e at trial that P.C. suffere d mistreatment and abuse dur ing the six months that he remaine d in L owry ’s classr oom, culminating in an inc ident that
oc c ur re d o n Jan

ua ry 18 , 2 00 5. On

that date , Re ne e Ra tli ff , a te a c hin g a ssi stan t wor

kin g in L ow ry ’s c la ssr oo m, w itn e sse d L ow ry us e he r hip to kn oc k P.C. to the g ro un d, c a us inghim to h it h is head on the tile floor. Acc ording to Ratliff, P.C. bega n cry ing in pain when his head hit the g round 3 and L owry

walked a way without comforting him or administering first aid. Ratliff immediately

repor ted the incident to Shelly Miller, another

teac her at Hy de Park. Miller, after looking up the definiti on of abuse in the Tex as F amily Code and for

ming the opinion that what had ha ppened to P.C. constituted a buse, share d the information with Wanda Ba y lor J ohnson, the eleme ntary coordinator for the day car e ce nter. Miller a lso informed Johns on that she had pe rsonally

seen L owry

knock P.C. and other c hildren to the g round in the past and that she believe d that P.C. was the rec ipient of L owry ’s roug h treatment more often tha n other c hildren. 4 T h e n ex t day , J ohnson held a mee ting with two other administrators at Hyde Park, D irec tor Ginny Br aden a nd Assistant Director J anie Ba sham. Br aden, B asham, a nd J ohnson discussed the3

alleg ations and ca

me to the conclusion that, acc ordingto J ohnson, “We did not suspect child abuse.” The Hy de Park a dminist rators did not inform P.C.’s pare nts, the police, or Child Protective Servic es (CPS) about the incident. L owry rema ined in her position as the lea d teach er in P.C.’s classroom until J anuar

y 21, 2005, when Hyde Park a dminist rators suspe n d ed h er for one wee k while they investigated the alleg ations.

W h i l e H yd e P ar

k a d m i n i s t r a t o r s d i d n o t r e p o rt t h e i n c i d e n tt o C P S , A mb e r D e l a n e y, a tea ching assistant at Hy de Park, c alled CPS herself on January 18, 2005, the day

P.C. was injured. P.C.’s parents we re not inf ormed that their child had be come the subje ct of a CPS investigation. On J anuar y 28, 2005, CPS repr esentatives came to Hy de Park to investig ate the c har ges an d Br aden inf or me d th e m th a t a

de c isi on ha d b e e n ma de that da

y to t e rm inate L ow ry

fo r f a ili ngto c omp le te an incident r eport a

bout P.C .’s injury . Be fore L owry could be terminated, howe ver, she submitt ed her r esig nation.

Turner , P.C.’s mot her, f

irst learne d of the a lleg ations that L owry had abused her son when she broug ht P.C . to Hy de Park on January 31, 2005, and wa s informed that L o wr y had
r e s ig n e d
. T u r

n e r te s ti f ie d th a t s h e b e c a me c o n c e r

n e d w h e nL o w r

y ’ s r e p la c e me n t, D ia

n a Ca s ti ll o, failed to g ive her

a satisfa ctory

expl an at i o n fo r L owry ’s abse nce. T urner then questioned B rade n
a bo ut t he re a so n f

or L ow ry ’s a

br up t r e sig natio n, sp e a kin g to B ra de n f ir st i n p e rs on

and a se c on d ti me by telephone. Accor ding to Turner , Br aden refuse d to g ive her an explanation, simply repe ating that it was “time for

a cha ng e.” T urner

beca me alar med by Br aden’ s non-re sponsiveness and r eturne d t o t h e s ch o o l t o i n s i s to na m e e t i n g wi t h Br ad en . T u rn er t es t i fi edt h at af

t er re p ea t edqu es t i o n i n g, B r a d e nu l t i m a t e l y r e v e a l e d t h a tt h e r e h a d

b e e na r e p o rto f

p h ys i c a l a

b u s e o f P
. C
. b y L o w r

y.Mil le r a nd Ra tli ff bo th t e sti fi e d to wi tne ssi nga pa rt ic ular in cid ent that oc c ur re d in 5 November

2004 involving the wa lking r ope and a child who had just lear

ned to walk. When the c hil d s a t do wn on the pave me nt and re fu se d to wa lk any fu rt he r, L ow ry c on tin

ue d to dr a g the c hil d acr oss the paveme nt for one or two fee t. Miller testified t hat s he re ported this incident to Hy de Park a d m i n i s t r a t o r s a tt h e t i m e t h a ti to c c u r r e d an d a g a i na tt h e t i m e s h e r e p o rt e d P
. C
. ’ s i n j u r y. 4 When a sked at trial whether Br aden actua lly used the word “abuse ” to de scribe wha t h ad b een
r e p o rt e d , T u r

n e r an s w e r e d

a f f i r m a t i v e l y. The Curtis family

prese nted evidenc e at tria l t h at L owry had a longhistory

of mis tr e a tme nt o r i na

pp ro pr ia te be havio r t ow ard s th e tod dle rs in her care, and that ma ny of the se incidents had be en re ported to Hyde Park ad m i n i s t rators by pare nts or other tea cher s. Ratliff testified that prior to the incide nt with P.C . on the 18th, she had se en L owry knock over

other children, use her le g s to pin children ag ainst walls, and jer k on a “w alking rope” used for children first lear ning to walk, causing the children to fall down. Ratliff also testified that, in her opinion, 5 L owry did not like P.C., treated him diff ere ntly than the other

children, a

nd fre quently

made ne g ative comments about him.

De lane y , a

te a c hin g a ssi sta

nt w ho spen t se ve ra l mo nth s w or kin g in L owry ’s classr oom, testified that she had w itnessed multiple incidents of L owry mistreating the children in her class. These incidents included L owry intentionally pushing a chair out from under
a c hil d, thr ow inga

c hil d o nto a

na pti me ma t f

ro m a he ig ht of

tw o o r t hr e e fe e t w ithsu c h f

or c e that,
a c c or din g to D e lane y , “ Isaw h e r b od y bo un c e ,” de pr ivi ng c hil dr e n of fo od , and fo rc inga c hil d to dr in k mil k b y

pinnin g him

a g a ins t he r b od

y and pr e ssi ng the c up to h is f

a c e , le a vin g the c hil d g asping for a ir. Dela

ney testified that af

ter a bout a month of observingL owry ’s behavior, she beg an complaining to Hy de Park a dminist rators. In a wr itten statement that was e ntere d into evidence ,5

De lane y state d, “ Ev e ry tw o or thr e e da y s fo r tw o we e ks , and so me tim e s on ba c k- to-b ack d ay s, I would make a

complaint about [L owry ’s] treatment of the c hildren to the administration. [Assis tant Di re c tor B a sh a m] to ld m e on e da

y that my state me nts did no t do any g oo d be c a us e I wa s the on ly wi tne ss. ” Af

te r D e lane y

lod g e d n ume ro us c omp la int s a

bo ut L ow ry , H y de Park

a dmi nis tr a tor s h e ld a conf ere nce in whic h Delane y was a sked to repe at her alleg ations i n L o wr y ’s pre sence . Delane y complied, and L owry

“brushe d the alleg ations off,” acc ording to Delane y ’s affidavit. After this confer ence , Delane y

reque sted and re ceive d place ment in another c l as s ro o m so that she no l o n g e r w o r k e d w i t h L o w r

y. Dire ctor B rade n testified re g ardingmultipl e complaints she r ece ived about L owr y ’s behav ior

thr ou g ho ut t

he tim e L ow ry

wa s e mpl oy e d at H y de Park . T he se c omp la int s included five differ ent pa renta l complaints, including a pare nt and Hy de Park e mploy ee w ho witnessed L owry

“fling her c hild across the r oom into some pillows.” Br aden a lso testified that at least two t eac hers had asked to be removed from L owry ’s classroom during her tenure as director and that four

differ ent teac hers ha d g iven written doc umentation of i n c id e nts in w hich they witnessed L owry treating c hildren in a roug h manner . Assis t an t Direc tor Ba sham also testified re g arding
m u ltiple complaints by

teac hers a

nd pare nts, including many complaints that L owry

was not “nurturing enoug h” in her treatment of the children. L ois Gamble, a f ormer dir ector

of the da y car e cente r at Hyde Park, a lso testified to complaints she receive d reg arding L owry during her te nure a s direc tor. These complaints led Gamble to hold a meeting with L owry in J uly 1995 and g ive her a written letter de scribing the problems, including what many pare nts perce ived to be an “ intense body po sture .” Ga

mbl e te sti fi e d th a t a ft e r p re se nti ngL ow ry wi th thi s let te r, sh e “ c on tin ue d to wor

k w ithMcCarthy testified that as a

result of his adjus t m en t disorder, P.C. “exerc ises an 6 overc ontrol” whe n approa ching new e nvironments, which “limits what he is will ing to take on and explore.” Acc ording to Mc Carthy , this limitation pre vents P.C. fr om thinking about tasks “in new a nd re l e v an tw ay s , w h i c h y o un e e d i no r d e r t o l e ar nn e w t h i n g s . S o i t ’ s r e a l l y l i m i t i n g h is development.” McCarthy observe d that when draw ing, P.C. “w on’t g rasp the pencil strong ly ,” as if “ he wa s af

ra id of makin g a mis take ,” and

that, i f l e ft

un tr e a te d, thi s p ro ble m c ou ld p re ve nt P .C. from deve loping a dequate fine motor ski lls. McCarthy further testified that P.C. suffers f rom s i g n i f i c an tl e v e l s o f

an x i e t y. 6 [L owry ] on di ffe rent ty

pes of improvements,” but that pa rents, fellow tea cher s, and administrators continued to re port L owry ’s l ac k o f flexibili ty and af fec tion toward the c hildren, prompting
a dd iti on a l me e tin g s w ithL ow ry in a n atte mpt to a dd re ss t he se c on c e rn s. The only phy sical m anife station of P .C. being knocked to the g round on January 18
was a bump on his head that re quired no medic al attention bey ond the initial X-ray . Howeve r, the Curtis fami l y p resented evidenc e that P.C. sustained psy cholog ical har m as a re sult of L owry ’s treatment. P.C.’s treating psy cholog ist, Dr. Mary McCarthy , testified that she diag nosed P.C
. w i t h a

p s y c h o l o g i c a l c o n d i t i o nkn o w na s a d j u s t m e n td i s o r d e r

an d t h a t , w i t h i na

r e a s on a ble deg ree of medica l probability , the cause of this c ondition was the abuse he suffe red at Hy de Park. 6 McCarthy

further testified that re g ular ther apy for a number of y ear s would b e n ecessary to treat P.C.’s adjustment dis order
.

Th e jur y fo un d th a t L ow ry ’s int e nti on a l a c t or a c ts pr oximate ly c a us e d in jur y to P .C. and that Hyde Park’ s neg lige nce contributed to his injuries. The jury further allocate d fault to find Hy de Park 80% responsible and L owry 20% responsible. The jury awa rded $3,582 for past medica l expenses, $34,980 for f

uture medical expenses, $25,000 for past phy sical pain and mental a ng uish,Whe n a pa rt y c on te nd s th a t th e re is no evi den ce t o s up po rt the su bmi ssi on of a sp e c if ic 7 element of

damag es in a broa d-for

m jury question, the par

ty must object befor e the c harg e is rea d to the jury
. Ha rri

s Co un ty v . S mi th , 96 S.W .3d 230, 236 (Tex. 2002). I n the pre sent ca se, howe ver, the issue of mental anguish dama g es wa s not submit ted in a broa d-for m question that included other elements of da

mag es. To the e x tent that the question was br oad for m in allowing the jur

y to awar d damag es base d on both L owry ’s acts and Hy de P ark’ s neg lige nce, Hy de Park w aived a ny potential complaint reg ardingthe form of the question under Sm ith
. See id.

7 and $100,000 for

futu re m en t al ang uish. Hy de Park’ s subsequent motions for new tr ial and judgme nt notwithst anding the ver dict wer e over ruled, a nd this appeal followe d. I n three issues on appea l, Hy de Park a rg ues (1) that there was no competent e vidence to support an awa

rd for future mental ang uish, (2) that ther e wa s no competent e vidence to support
an a wa rd fo r f utu re me dic a l e xpe ns e s, and

(3 ) t hat the jur y ’s a llo c a tio n of c omp ara

tiv e re sp on sib ili ty betwee n L owry

and Hyde Park w as ag ainst the g reat weig ht and pre pondera nce of the evidenc e.
DI SCU SSIO N Fu tur e Me nta l A nguis h

Hy de Park c ontends that there is le g ally insufficient e vidence to support an awa rd of damag es for

future men t al ang uish, an argument first raise d in its post -trial motions. A “noevidenc e” point of err or may be ra ised for the first time in a motion for judg ment notwithstanding the ver dict or a motion for ne w trial. Ce cilv. S mi th , 804 S.W .2d 509, 510-11 (Te x . 1991). In 7 revie wing a no-evidence challeng e, we consider all of t he evidence in the light most favora ble to the pa rt y in w ho se fa

vo r t he ve rd ic t ha s bee n re nd e re d an d indu lg e e ve ry re a so na ble inf e re nc e de du c ibl e from the e vidence in that pa rty ’s favor. Merre ll Dow Pharm., Inc. v. H avner , 953 S.W .2d 706, 711 (Tex. 1 9 9 7 ). I f more tha n a scintilla of probative evidenc e supports the finding , the no-e videnceHy de Park a rg ues that McCar

thy ’s experience providing thera py to children who ha

ve bee n 8 a bu se d r e nd e rs he r an unre lia ble e xpe rt wi tne ss, statin g , “ She ha s mu c h e xpe ri e nc e wo rk ingwi th victims of abuse, a

nd her f ocus is on h e lp ing th e m de a l w iththe se sit uatio ns . I t is c e rt a inl y commendable that sh e is e mo ti onally involved in helping children, but this is precise ly the ‘imperf

ect fit’ wher e the ther apist can no long er r ender a scie ntifically

detac hed opinion on causation.” 8 challeng e fa ils. Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Nishika Ltd. , 953 S.W .2d 733, 738 (Tex. 1997). More than a scintilla of evidenc e exis ts w here the evidenc e supporting the finding , as a w hole, rises to a le ve l th a t w ou ld e na

ble re a so na

ble and fa ir -m ind e d p e op le to d if fe r i n th e ir

c on c lus ion s. Merre ll Dow , 953 S.W .2d at 711.

Hy de Park argues that the Curtis fa mily failed to pr esent e vidence of future mental ang uish beca

use their c laims were improperly based on “ subjective” clinical psy cholog ical testimony , rathe r than a

n objective diag nosis. I n support of t his argument, Hy de Park ur g es that the te sti mony of the Cur tis fa mil y ’s e xpe rt

wi tne ss—P.C. ’s tr e a tin g ps y c ho log ist , D r. Mc Cart hy —is fu nd a me nta lly

fl awe d b e c a

us e sh e is a

c lin ic a l ps y c ho log ist

rathe r t han a fore ns ic ps y c ho log ist
. Hy de Park attacks McCar thy ’s methodolog y , complaining t hat she “ did not testify that [P .C.] had experience d a tra

uma that had a

ny rec og nized ra t e- o f-incide nce f or any psy cholog ical condition lin ke d to tr a

uma .” Hyde Park

a lso ur g e s th a t th e dia g no sis of a cli ni cal ps y c ho log ist

is i nv a lid be c a us e it i s b a se d o n th e “ se lf -i nte re ste d” state me nts of the patie nt o r h is p are nts , w hil e fo re ns ic psy cholog y

require s the expert to “look at source s of i nformation outs ide of the patient’s own se lfinterested statements” a

nd “ac tually

seek[] out independe nt information.” 8 Hyde Park

did no t ob je c t to Mc Cart

hy ’s de sig natio n a s an e xpe rt wi tne ss d ur ingtr ia l. “To pre serve a complaint that an e x pert’s te stimony is unreliable, a

party must object to the testimony befor e trial or w hen it is offer ed.” G u a d a l u p e - B l a n c o R i v e r

A u th

. v . Kra

ft , 7 7 S
. W .3d9

80 5, 80 7 ( Te x. 20 02 ); see also Coasta l T r a n s p. Co., Inc. v. Crown Cent. Petroleum Corp. , 136 S.W .3d 227, 233 (Tex. 2004) (“[W] hen a reliability challeng e require s the court to evaluate the underlying me thodology , technique, or foundational data used by the expert, an objec tion must be tim e ly ma de so that th e tr ia l c ourt ha s th e op po rt

un ity to c on du c t thi s ana ly sis .” ). Ha vin g fa ile d to prese rve its complaint reg arding the reliability of McCar

thy ’s expert-witness testimony , Hy de Park cannot now a ssert that McCar thy ’s testimony

constitutes “ no evidenc e” on the issue of P.C.’s future mental anguish. See Coastal Transp. , 1 36 S .W.3d a t 23 3 ( ho ldi ngthat ob

je c tio n is re qu ir e d to prese rve no- evidenc e cha lleng e base d on expert’s scientific me thodology ). McCarthy

testified that she diag nosed P.C. with a psy cholog ical condition known as
a dju stm e nt dis or de r that, wit hin a re a so na

ble de g re e of me dic a l pro ba bil ity , ha d be e n ca

us e d b y his experience in L owry ’s classr oom. I n her te st i m o n y , McCarthy descr ibed at leng th the objective testing pr ocess she used in rea ching this diagnosis. She further testified that P.C.’s psy cholog ical
c on dit ion wo uld re qu ir e bo th p lay

the ra py and fam il y

the ra py fo r s e ve ra l y e ars , a s w e ll a s a
r e a s s e s s m e n to f

h i s c o n d i t i o na tt h e a g e o f s i x t o d e t e r

m i n e t h e n e e d

f o r a d d i t i o n a l t h e r a

p y . In
a dd iti on to M c Cart

hy ’s te sti mony , b oth

of P.C. ’s pa

re nts te sti fi e d r e g ard ingne g a tiv e c ha ng e s in P.C.’s demeanor a

nd behavior afte r he w as plac ed in L owry ’s classr oom at Hy de Park, inc luding that he ha d b e c ome ph y sic a lly a g g re ssi ve to ward s ot he r c hil dr e n a nd the fa mil y do g . In li g ht o f t

his evidenc e, we hold that the Curtis fa mily prese nted more tha

n a scintilla of evide nce of P.C.’s future mental anguish. Se e Ad am s v . YMCA , 265 S.W .3d 915, 915 (Tex. 2 0 0 8) (pe r cur iam) (e x pert testimo n y re g ardingrea sonable proba bility of future mental anguish, coupled with testimony of family members reg arding behavior afte r abuse , sufficie nt to survive no-evide nce c halleng e, eve n in absenc e of bodily

injury).10 I n addition to its no-evide nce c halleng e, Hyde Park also argues that future mental
an g u i s h d a m a g e s ar e n o ta v a i l a b l e a s a m a t t e r o f l a w u n l e s s t h e r e i s e v i d e n c e o f s e r i o u s b o d i l y i n

j u r y, a “spe cial relationship” be tween the parties, injuries of a shocking and disturbing nature , or intent or malice by

the def endant. See City o

f Tyler v. Likes , 962 S.W .2d 489, 495-96 (Te x . 1997). Hy de Park f

urther c ontends that none of these objective fac tors are prese nt in this c ase, a nd there fore the Curtis family

is not entitl ed to damag es for future me ntal ang uish. Despite Hyde Park’ s argument to the contra ry , Lik es does not se t f

orth an exhaustive list of the ty

pes of c ases in which f

uture menta l ang uish damag es ar e ava ilable. See id. at 496 (“ The prec eding analy sis is obvi ously far from exhaustive . . . . Our op i n i o n t o d ay d o es not attempt the perha ps impossi ble task of distilling a unifie d theory of m en tal ang uish from the existi ng prec edents.” ). Howe ver , ev en i f a party wer e re quired to demonstrate the existence of one of the fac tors descr ibed in Lik

es in o rd e r t o r e c ov e r m e nta l anguis h dama g e s, on e su c h fa c tor is p re se nt i n this case. Under Likes , w he re the re is i nte nti on a l or ma lic iou s c on du c t on

the de fe nd ant’ s p a rt , mental anguish damag es ar e recove rable in light of the defendant’s “hig h level of culpability .” Id.
a t 49 5. Hyde Park

c on c e de s th a t L ow ry ’s a c tio ns in vo lv e a suf fi c ie nt l e ve l of

int e nt o r m a lic e to trig g er mental ang uish damag es under Likes , stating in its brief on a ppeal that “ there can be no doubt that [L owry ] was found by the jury to have e ng ag ed in ‘intentional misconduct.’ B ut, as to the Church , there was no such ‘ high le vel of c ulpability .’” ( Record r efe renc es omitted.) Be cause the question on future me ntal ang uish allowed the jury to consi der both Hyde Park’ s neg lige nce a nd L owry ’s intentional a cts in de termining the proper amount of dama g es, L owry ’s intentional conduct place s this case square ly within the “intent or malice ” categ ory of ca ses desc ribed in Likes for whic hThe re levant question stated, “What sum of money , if paid now in ca sh, would fairly and 9 r e a s o n a b l y c o mp e n s a t e [ P
. C
. ] f

o r h i s i n j u r i e s , i f an y , t h a tr e s u l t e d f r o m t h e o c c u r

r e n c e i nqu e s t i o n ?” A s ub pa rt of thi s qu e sti on a llo we d the jur y to lis t an a mou

nt fo r “ Me nta l anguis h th a t, i n r e a so na ble probability , [P .C.] will sustain in t he future .” 11 mental anguish damag es ar e ava ilable. Whil e Hy de Park char acte rizes the awa rd as a rec overy

for 9 “neg lige nt infliction of emotional distress,” the jury questi o n
— t o wh i ch Hyde Park did not object—wa s prese nted in a manner t hat allowed the j ury to consider L owry ’s i ntentional acts whe n
awa rding damag es for

future me ntal ang uish. Be cause more than a scintilla of evidence supports the j ury ’s awa rd of f uture menta l
anguis h dama g e s and

Te xas l aw d oe s n ot b ar t

he Cur tis fa mil y ’s re c ov e ry

of su c h d a ma g e s in

thi s
case , Hy de Park’ s first issue is overrule d.
Future Me dical Expe nses

I n its second issue on appe al, Hy de Park argues that there was no c ompetent evidenc e at trial to support an a

war d of future m ed i ca l ex p enses. I n support of this argument, Hy de Park
re ite rate s it s atta c k o n th e re lia bil ity of the Cur tis fa mil y ’s e xpe rt

wi tne ss, statin g that “ the on ly evidenc e re g ardingfuture me dical expenses wa s from Dr. Mc Carthy , P laintiffs’ psy cholog ical expert,” and a sserting that McCarthy ’s expert opinion reg ardingfuture me dical expenses wa s fundame ntally

flawe d for the same rea sons ur g ed re g ardingher te stimony on future me ntal ang uish. As previously

discussed, Hyde Park f

ailed to make a timely

objection to McCarthy ’s desig nation as an expert witness and ha s theref ore w aived its rig ht to asser t that the underly ing methodology of her testimony was so unre liable as to constitute “no e vidence ” to s upport an a war d of future medical expenses. Se e Ma rit im e Ov e rseas Co rp. v . E lli s , 971 S.W .2d 402, 409 (Tex. 1998) (holding that12

party m ust object to expert testimony befor e or dur ing tr ial in order to pr eser ve complaint that
e xpe rt ’s te sti mony

is unr e lia ble and thu s, no e vid e nc e ); see also Coast al Transp. , 136 S.W .3d at 233. McCarthy

testified that the re as o n ab l e and necessar y cost of P.C.’s future me dical
c are wa s $ 34 ,9 80 , b a se d o n h e r e xpe rt op ini on re g ard ing P.C. ’s ne e d fo r futur e pla y the ra py se ssi on s, family thera py sessions, and another

ps y ch o l o gi cal e valuation at the a g e of six. Furthermor e, M c C art h y t e s t i f

i e d r e g ar d i n g h e r c o n c l u s i o n t h a t , w i t h i n a r e a s o n a b l e d e g r e e o f

m e d i c a l p r o b a

b i l i t y, the abuse P.C. suffere d under L owry ’s car e was the cause of his psycholog ical disorder. I n light of Hy de Park’ s waiver

of er ror, we hold that McCarthy ’s testimony constitutes more than a

scintilla of evidenc e to support the jury ’s awa rd of $34,980 for future medical expenses. Hy de Park’ s second issue is overrule d.
Com pa ra tiv e Re

sp on sib ili ty I n its thi rd issue on appe al, Hy de Park a rg ues that the t ri a l c ourt e rr e d in failing to gr ant its moti on fo r newtrial bec ause the jury ’s ver dict allocating compar ative responsibility

— 2 0% to L owry

and 80% to Hyde Park—w as ag ainst the g reat weig ht and preponde ranc e of the evidenc e.

I n revie wing the fa ctual suff iciency of a jury verdic t, we must we i gh al l of the evidenc e in the re cord a

nd may not overturn the jur

y ’s finding unless it is so ag ainst the g reat weig ht and pre pondera

nce of the evide nce a s to be manifestly unjust. Ortiz v. Jones , 917 S.W .2d 770, 772 (Tex. 1996).

I n challeng ing the allocation of compar ative responsibili ty , Hy de Park c oncede s that its own n e g lig e nc e and

L ow ry ’s int e nti on a l a c ts a re a c c e pte d a

nd un dis pu te d f

or purp os e s o f t

his13

appea l. R a t h e r t h an c h a l l e n g i n g t h e j u r y ’ s f i n d i n g s o n t h e s e i s s u e s , H y d e P ar k ar g u e s tha t, a s a matter o f law, a ne g lige nt wrong doer c an neve r bea r more r esponsibility

for a n injury than an intentional tortfeasor
. This proposition is unsupported by Texas law. Chapter 33 of the civil prac tice
and re me die s code pro vi des t hat th e jur

y , a s tr ie r o f f

a c t, s ha ll d e te rm ine the pr op or tio nate responsibility

of ea ch def

endant in a tor

t claim. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann
. § 3 3
. 003 (We st 2 00 8) . T he statut e make s n o dis tin c tio n be tw e e n tho se de fe nd ants wh o h a ve a c te d n e g lig e ntl y and thos e found to have c ommitt ed intentional torts. See id. Simi larly , Hy de Park ha s not provided, nor have we f

ound, any prec edent in Te x as ca se law that would support a br ight- line prohibition on
a l l o c a t i n g g r e a t e r

r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t o a

n e g l i g e n td e f

e n d an tt h ant o a

d e f e n d an tw h o a c t e d

i n t e n t i o n a l l y. The Curtis fami l y p resented evidenc e that Hyde Park a dminist rators ha d rec eived numerous complaints fr om pare nts and teac hers r eg ardingL owry ’s inappropriate and a busive be havio r t ow ard s to dd le rs in h e r c are . D e sp ite the se re po rt s, wh ic h s pa nn e d a pe ri od of te n y e a rs , Hy de Park chose to r etain L owry as a lea d teac her in a classroom with childre n under the ag e of two. Ev e n a ft e r Hyde Park a dmi nis tr a tor s re c e ive d re po rt s th a t L ow ry ha d in jur e d P. C. b y

int e nti on a lly knocking him to the gr ound, that she had pr eviously knocked othe r childre n to the g round, and that sh e freq uen tl y sin g le d P. C. o ut f or ro ug h tr e a tme nt, Hyde Park le ft P.C. and his c la ssm a te s in L owr y ’ s c ar e f o r s e v e r a l m o r e d ay s . T h e ju r y a ls o h e ar d

e v id e n c e th a t H y d e Pa

r k a d mi n is tr ators attempted to conc eal L owry ’s treatment of P.C.—and his resulting injury —from his pare nts, even
a ft e r P .C. ha d b e c ome the su bje c t of a CPS in ve sti g a tio n. Gi ve n th is e vid e nc e and the hig hly defe rential standa

rd of r eview a

pplied to jury verdic ts, w e cannot conclude that the jury ’s allocation of propor tionate re sponsibili ty was so ag ainst the gre at weight and pr eponder ance of the e vidence as to be manife stly

unjust. Hy de Park’ s third issue is overruled.14 CO NC LU SION Be cause more than a scintilla of evidenc e exis ts to support the damag es aw ards f or future me ntal ang uish and future medical expenses and beca use the jury ’s allocation of compa rative
re sp on sib ili ty

is n ot m anif

e stl y un jus t, w e a ff

ir m th e tr ia l c ourt ’s jud g me nt.

_______________________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _____________ Diane M. H enson, Jus tice Be fore J ustices Patterson, Waldrop and H enson Affir med Filed: January

30, 2009