Abelardo Zamora and Janet Zamora, Individually and as Next Friends of Abelardo Zamora Jr., a Minor Child v. Jacob James Davila
04-15-00028-CV
| Tex. App. | Dec 9, 2015Background
- Collision on Nov. 30, 2011; appellee Davila stipulated negligence (rear-ended the Zamoras).
- Jury awarded Abelardo modest sums for past medical expenses ($179.25), pain/impairment, and lost wages; Janet received no past medical expense award and small non-economic awards; no future damages awarded.
- Zamoras appealed, arguing the low/zero awards for past medical expenses were against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence given uncontroverted medical bills and records.
- Evidence at trial: testimony of the parties, police report, vehicle photos, vehicle repair bill, hospital records for Abelardo, chiropractor records for both, and statutory affidavits of medical expenses; no expert (physician) testimony on causation.
- The trial record contained conflicts/inconsistencies (discrepancies about who was injured, which knee was injured, pregnancy timing, how the chiropractor was referred, and differing reports at the scene), which the jury resolved against the Zamoras.
- Court applied Texas factual-sufficiency review, emphasized jury discretion to judge credibility and resolve conflicts, and affirmed the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the jury's awards for past medical expenses are against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence | Zamora: medical records, bills, and section 18.001 affidavits were objective and unrefuted, so the low/zero awards are unsupported | Davila: evidence contained conflicts; jury properly weighed credibility and could reject or limit medical damages despite bills/records | Affirmed — awards are not against the great weight; jury could disbelieve testimony/records and resolve inconsistencies |
Key Cases Cited
- Dow Chem. Co. v. Francis, 46 S.W.3d 237 (Tex. 2001) (sets the standard for factual-sufficiency review of adverse findings)
- Golden Eagle Archery, Inc. v. Jackson, 116 S.W.3d 757 (Tex. 2003) (court must not substitute its judgment for the jury when reviewing factual sufficiency)
- Barrajas v. VIA Metro. Transit Auth., 945 S.W.2d 207 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997) (jury is sole judge of witness credibility and may disbelieve uncontradicted testimony)
- Gonzalez v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 143 S.W.3d 118 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2004) (affirming zero or low damage awards where evidence on damages was conflicting)