Edgar L. Hull, Jr. v. South Coast Catamarans, L.P., Oguz Aksan, Individually, Aksano Catamarans, LLC and James Babcock
365 S.W.3d 35
| Tex. App. | 2011Background
- Hull bought a new Aksano F-18 boat from South Coast Catamarans, with Babcock as a sales rep, in Sept 2007; Hull alleged undisclosed defects and demanded a refund.
- In Feb 2008, Hull reported fiberglass defects; Hull commissioned tests and demanded a full refund plus costs; Aksano offered to repair if it caused the damage, otherwise refused.
- A visiting judge presided over the Feb 2010 trial; Hull’s expert testimony violated Rule 194.2(f) and a pretrial docket control order, but the court allowed the expert to testify after a late written report.
- The jury returned a unanimous verdict for Hull; after trial, a district judge granted a new trial based on discovery/docket control violation and juror error.
- Thereafter, the district judge granted defendants’ motions for summary judgment; Hull appealed arguing lack of authority, error in granting new trial, and improper summary judgments.
- The court held the new-trial order was not void, affirmed the district court’s new-trial ruling, but reversed in part on summary judgment and remanded for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authority of district vs. visiting judge for new trial | Hull contends district judge lacked power to rule. | Defendants rely on assignment order and Rule 330(g) to support authority. | District judge validly ruled on new trial. |
| Sufficiency of the new-trial basis (discovery/docket control and juror error) | New trial improper because no prejudice from discovery or juror error. | Violation harmed defensibility and warranted new trial. | No abuse of discretion; trial court properly granted new trial. |
| Effect of discovery violations on summary judgment | Summary judgment appropriate despite discovery issues. | No-evidence/supportable on breach-related elements justifies judgment. | Trial court erred in granting traditional summary judgment; issues of fact exist; remanded. |
| Agent liability of Babcock for Hull's claims | Babcock can be personally liable on fraud/negligence/DTPA etc. | Agent cannot be personally liable on contract; cannot be liable where principal disclosed. | Babcock liable on fraud, negligence, DTPA, and warranty claims; not liable on breach of contract; no-evidence grant partly reversed. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Columbia Med. Ctr. of Las Colinas, Subsidiary, L.P., 290 S.W.3d 204 (Tex. 2009) (new-trial standard and review limitations articulated)
- Wilkins v. Methodist Health Care Sys., 160 S.W.3d 559 (Tex. 2005) (limits on appellate review of new-trial orders)
- Ex parte Eastland, 811 S.W.2d 571 (Tex.1991) (visiting judge authority and assignment mechanics)
- Beard v. Beard, 49 S.W.3d 40 (Tex. App.—Waco 2001) (visiting judge authority and termination of assignment)
- Davis v. Crist Indus., Inc., 98 S.W.3d 338 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2003) (two-judge influence on case; overlapping bench authority)
- W.C. Banks, Inc. v. Team, Inc., 783 S.W.2d 783 (Tex. App.—Hou. [1st Dist.] 1990) (exception to free exchange of benches limited)
- Hot-Hed, Inc. v. Safehouse Habitats (Scotland), Ltd., 333 S.W.3d 719 (Tex. App.—Hou. [1st Dist.] 2010) (attorney’s fees award proper where trial was jury trial)
- Enax v. Noack, 12 S.W.3d 609 (Tex. App.—Hou. [1st Dist.] 2000) (district court can enter judgment where trial concluded elsewhere)
- Louwien v. Dowell, 534 S.W.2d 421 (Tex. Civ. App.—Dallas 1976) (trial court may grant new trial before final judgment)