Court Opinion

ID: 9646289
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 12:55:06.459227+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:36.319487
License: Public Domain

BIERY, Justice,
concurring.
I reluctantly concur in the overruling of Welex’s second point of error.
Following the discovery sanction of defaulting Welex, which I agree does not rise to the level of an abuse of discretion, the practical effect of allowing Broom to present evidence of comparative fault and in preventing Welex from presenting the evidence preserved in its bills of exception was a damage trial not played on a level playing field.
Welex went into the arena, having been defaulted on liability, with one hand tied behind its back. The inability to defend against Broom’s evidence effectively tied Welex’s other hand. We are unfortunately constrained, however, by our supreme court’s holding in Morgan, 675 S.W.2d at 731, that the plaintiff is obliged to present evidence of a causal nexus between the event sued upon and the party’s alleged injuries. This is simply another way of saying that the plaintiff must prove proximate cause and yet we have historically understood causation to be a part of liability-
When Cypress Creek, 640 S.W.2d at 865, is applied and if Morgan is to continue to be the law, we are asking the factfinder, in multiple party cases such as this, to “compare” the negligence of the alleged tort-feasors and to find a “causal nexus” without knowing fully what happened.
I yield to the higher court authorities cited by the majority and, based upon that acquiescence, concur.