Court Opinion

ID: 9640395
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 17:05:14.477147+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:29.530062
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
On motion for rehearing, Baylor complains that the court has not specifically addressed its contention that there is no evidence to support the jury’s award of past and future damages. Baylor argued under these points of error that all of the evidence supporting the jury’s award was improperly admitted; therefore, no evidence or insufficient evidence supported the jury award.
In our review of the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence, we review the legal sufficiency of the evidence under the review standards of Garza v. Alviar, 395 S.W.2d 821, 823 (Tex.1965), and the factual sufficiency under the review standards of In re King’s Estate, 150 Tex. 662, 244 S.W.2d 660, 661-62 (1951). Thus, we will first examine the record for any probative evidence to support the finding, ignoring all contrary evidence. If we find some probative evidence, we will test the factual sufficiency of that evidence by examining the entire record to determine whether the finding is clearly wrong and unjust.
As previously discussed, Kidd’s testimony about his pain and suffering was properly admitted, thus constituting some evidence of damage. The jury issue did not specify the amount of award for each separate claim. As previously discussed, the jury has great discretion in determining the amount to be recovered for the infliction of pain and mental anguish, and could conceivably have awarded the entire amount on this basis. Exxon Corp. v. Roberts, 724 S.W.2d 863 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1986, writ ref’d n.r.e.); George Vaughan & Sons v. Dyess, 323 S.W.2d 261 (Tex.Civ.App.-Texarkana 1959, writ dism’d).
There is, therefore, some evidence to support the jury’s answer to the damage issues, and that evidence is sufficient to support the award.
The judgment remains reversed and remanded for a new trial on the merits.