Opinion ID: 2461163
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: germane to eight through tenth assignments of error in motion for rehearing.)

Text: THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN FAILING TO HOLD THAT ALCOA'S BREACH OF ITS DUTY TO WARN CONSUMERS SUCH AS PLAINTIFF AND BOTTLERS SUCH AS J.F.W. WAS GROSS NEGLIGENCE AND IN NOT REINSTATING THE JURY'S FINDING OF PUNITIVE DAMAGES OF $1,000,000 AGAINST ALCOA. Clearly, neither of these points of error asserts that the court of appeals erred in its standard for reviewing the factual sufficiency of the evidence. The court, sua sponte, addresses its own point of error regarding the sufficiency of the evidence. The court clearly violates the mandates of Tex.R.Civ.P. 476, which provides: The consideration of the Supreme Court shall be limited to questions of law raised by points in the application for writ of error and to questions of law certified by a Court of Appeals. Tex.R.Civ.P. 476 (Vernon 1986) (emphasis added). Caselaw further establishes that [t]his court may consider only those questions of law raised by assignments of error in the application for writ of error ... [and that] petitioner waives the right to complain of any holding to which no error is assigned. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v. Cowley, 468 S.W.2d 353, 354 (1971). This court is not authorized to reverse a lower court's judgment in the absence of properly assigned error. See State Bd. of Ins. of State of Texas v. Westland Film Indus., 705 S.W.2d 695 (Tex.1986); Gulf Consolidated Int'l. Inc. v. Murphy, 658 S.W.2d 565 (Tex.1983). The above rationale was applied in Nat. Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Blagg, 438 S.W.2d 905, 909 (Tex.1969) where the court of appeals made a no evidence holding. We observed that [s]ince this holding was not assigned as error in a motion for rehearing before the Court of Civil Appeals or in an application for writ of error before this court, it is final in Court of Civil Appeals, and we have no jurisdiction to review it. Id. at 566. Alm asserted nineteen points of error in his motion for rehearing in the court of appeals. Points sixteen and seventeen complained of the court of appeals' standard for review of the factual sufficiency of the evidence. An examination of Alm's two points of error show that they are germane only to points one through five and points eight through ten in his motion for rehearing before the court of appeals. Rather than assert all of the points raised in his motion for rehearing, Alm chose to assert what he probably believed to be his two strongest arguments. Neither point of error complained of the standard applied by the court of appeals in its review of the factual sufficiency of the evidence. The court argues a section of Alm's writ application, which appears after the Conclusion of Alm's second point of error, sufficiently presents a point of error in which it can bootstrap a sufficiency point. The section used by the court is entitled: Plaintiff's Comments on the Court of Appeals Review of the Record. This section complains of such items as the court of appeals addressing Alm's expert witness as Green, while addressing Alcoa's witness as Dr. Block. The alleged arguments in this section, however, were clearly not listed under a point of error and cannot be considered by this court. The court adopts a new approach in appellate reviewaddressing arguments that have not been raised by points of error. Alcoa certainly did not have an opportunity to respond to the incorrect standard for factual sufficiency review arguments that were supposedly raised in this cause. This court is authorized to review errors in the judgment of the court of appeals, it is not authorized to create arguments on behalf of the parties. For all of the above reasons, I dissent. McGEE, J., joins this dissent.