Court Opinion

ID: 9771764
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 16:52:53.050644+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:36.395514
License: Public Domain

HOYT, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent and would sustain the appellant’s first point of error, because the appellee’s pleadings fail to allege a legal duty owed by the appellant to the appellee.
Tex.R.Civ.P. 90 states:
Every defect, omission or fault in a pleading either of form or of substance, which is not specifically pointed out by exception in writing and brought to the attention of the judge in the trial court before the instruction or charge to the jury or, in a non-jury case, before the judgment is signed, shall be deemed to have been waived by the party seeking reversal on such account; provided that this rule shall not apply as to any party against whom default judgment is rendered.
(Emphasis supplied.) I interpret this rule to mean that defective allegations in pleadings that otherwise are waived during trial, are not so waived in cases where a default judgment is entered. Therefore, a default judgment may not be entered on matters not pled when those matters are essential to a cause of action based upon negligence. See White v. Jackson, 358 S.W.2d 174 (Tex.Civ.App.—Waco 1962, writ ref’d n.r.e.). The essentials of actionable negligence are (1) duty, (2) breach of duty, and (3) injury. Id.
In the case at bar, the appellee’s pleading on duty and breach of duty was as follows:
III.
On January 9, at approximately 8:00 a.m., Toan Viet Bui sustained serious personal injuries while driving a 1985 Toyota pickup truck which was involved in a rear-end collision, which forced his vehicle into the car in front of him. The automobile which Toan Viet Bui was operating was struck from behind dur*393ing the collision which involved a Pontiac, Texas license plate number 323-ADH, driven by George Michael Wil-lock. The collision occurred at 1300 Hays Road, Houston, Texas.
(Emphasis added.) This pleading is insufficient as a matter of law to charge the appellant with a duty of any kind. In fact, the pleading fails to apprise the appellant of what his specific involvement was in the collision. Appellee’s assertion that the appellant’s vehicle was “involved” in a collision with him, that also involved several other vehicles, does not assert a violation of any duty or responsibility owed by the appellant to the appellee. I would sustain the first point of error, reverse the judgment, and remand this cause to the trial court.