Opinion ID: 2391788
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Cab Co.'s Application

Text: In its application, the Cab Co. brings forth several points of error. The Cab Co. contends the court of appeals erred in remanding this cause rather than rendering judgment in its favor because there is no evidence of impairment of the familial relationships. In light of our holding that there is some evidence of impairment, there is no need to further discuss this matter. The Cab Co. also asserts that the court of appeals erred in failing to render judgment in its favor because the record contains no evidence of negligence or violation of a duty toward plaintiffs, and no evidence that its conduct was a proximate cause of the occurrence in question. As a prerequisite to a no evidence point of error on appeal, the appellant must have presented the no evidence contention to the trial court in at least one of the following ways: (1) By motion for instructed verdict; (2) By objection to submission of the special issue; (3) By motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict; (4) By motion to disregard the contested jury finding(s); or (5) By motion for new trial. Aero-Energy, Inc. v. Circle C. Drilling Co., 699 S.W.2d 821, 822 (Tex.1985). In the present case, the Cab Co. made no motion for instructed verdict, no motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and no motion to disregard any of the jury's answers. Moreover, the Cab Co. did not object to the submission of the negligence or proximate cause issues on no evidence grounds, nor was such included in its motion for new trial. Although the Cab Co. objected to these issues on other grounds, it did not preserve a no evidence point of error. We stated in Aero-Energy: A party objecting to a charge must point out distinctly the matter to which he objects and the grounds of his objection. Tex.R.Civ.P. 274. We hold that the objection to [the issue] was not sufficient to preserve a no evidence point because the objection did not distinctly point out that ground. 699 S.W.2d at 822. The court of appeals correctly held that the Cab Co. failed to preserve error on these points. The Cab Co. also contends the court of appeals erred in failing to render judgment for it because of the absence of any finding of failure to use ordinary care. The Cab Co. contends the trial court erred in submitting an issue concerning a high degree of care rather than ordinary care in the selection of its cab drivers. [2] The Cab Co. did not object to the high degree of care standard as submitted, nor to the definition in the court's instructions to the jury, nor did it request a different standard of care. Although the Cab Co. objected to the submission of this issue as being global, and on the basis of no evidence, no objection was made distinctly pointing out error on the ground of degree of care. An objection which states that an issue is global is insufficient. Brown v. American Transfer & Storage Co., 601 S.W.2d 931, 938 (Tex.1980). Since this alleged error was waived by the Cab Co. we need not reach this issue. The Cab Co. further asserts this cause should be remanded to the court of appeals for consideration of factual insufficiency points not considered by the court of appeals. The only point of error preserved which the court of appeals did not rule on is the Cab Co.'s point alleging that the actual and exemplary damages were excessive. Tex.R.Civ.P. 324(b)(2). This is a question of fact over which this court has no jurisdiction. Alamo National Bank v. Kraus, 616 S.W.2d 908, 910 (Tex.1981). Thus, this cause is remanded to the court of appeals for consideration of this point. In all other respects, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.