Court Opinion

ID: 9777358
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 20:08:01.387427+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:52.837687
License: Public Domain

HOLMAN, Justice,
dissenting on Motion for Rehearing.
I respectfully dissent from the order denying rehearing.
I would grant appellees’ motion for rehearing and affirm the judgment.
On original submission, this court construed appellant’s original petition as pleading a right to damages for the value of his sign, which the appellees destroyed.
Appellees’ motion for rehearing correctly argues that the only loss which the appellant pled was a loss of income and profits due to the sign’s destruction.
While the uncontroverted evidence shows the sign to have a $123.50 replacement value, appellant pled no damages for either the intrinsic or replacement values of the sign.
A trial court is required only to submit to the jury controlling issues. Tex.R.Civ.P. 277.
Upon the pleadings, the replacement value of the sign was not a controlling issue. Further, the evidence of such value was uncontroverted, leaving nothing for the jury to determine.
Appellant failed to introduce any probative evidence of a loss of profits occasioned by removal of the sign. There was evidence that appellant’s net profits had increased slightly after the sign was taken.
I would hold that the appellant failed to plead and prove the damages he alleged, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in withdrawing the case from the jury and rendering judgment for nominal damages only.
For these reasons, I dissent and would affirm.