Court Opinion

ID: 9649357
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 14:50:16.653879+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:09.994543
License: Public Domain

STOVER, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent to the majority’s analysis of the facts under Rule 50(e). Under the provisions of Rule 50(e), if the parties do not agree on a statement of facts, an appellant is entitled to a new trial if “the appellant has made a timely request for a statement of facts, but the court reporter’s notes and records have been lost or destroyed without appellant’s fault.” Tex. R.App. P. 50(e). The majority holds that appellant lacked diligence in ensuring that the court reporter’s recording device was properly functioning. I disagree.
This case is factually similar to Gillen v. Williams Bros. Const. Co., Inc., 933 S.W.2d 162 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1996, writ denied). In Gillen, the court reporter was unable to keep pace with the speed of trial and was told to get a tape recorder. The tape recorder subsequently failed and the resulting notes were sketchy, truncated, and contained gaps. The appellee argued that appellant was partially at fault because appellant took no action to remedy the problems the court reporter was having at trial. The court held that the appellant was not at fault for the court reporter’s failure to provide a full statement of facts, so as to preclude the granting of a new trial. Id. at 164. Basing its decision on Rule 50(e), the court reversed the judgment and remanded for a new trial.
In the instant case, shortly after the proceeding was underway, the court reporter’s machine became inoperable. Both sides were advised of the problem and it was agreed to continue with a tape recorder. Unknown to anyone, within minutes, the tape recorder began to malfunction. Although the taped recordings are part of the record, those recordings are partially inaudible. There is no evidence in the record to suggest that, at trial, either party was aware that a second problem — that of the faulty recorder — existed. In fact it would appear to the contrary — that the initial problem had been remedied and a memorialization of the proceedings was properly being conducted.
While it is undeniably true that litigants have a duty to ensure that a proper record is made for appellate review, a certain amount of reliance must be placed upon professional court reporters during trial proceedings. In my view, appellant was sufficiently diligent in protecting the record for appeal. Therefore, I would reverse and remand.