Enright v. Goodman Distribution, Inc.
330 S.W.3d 392
| Tex. App. | 2010Background
- Enright, an employee driver for Randall's Refrigeration, was struck by an air-conditioning condenser while it was being loaded onto a trailer at Goodman Distribution's facility.
- The incident occurred September 1, 2005; a forklift operator tilted the forks, the condenser slid onto the trailer, and Enright was hit in the lower back and right leg.
- Jury found both Enright and Goodman Distribution negligent (50/50) and awarded $15,199 in past medical expenses, with zero damages for future medical care, pain, lost earning capacity, disfigurement, impairment, or household services.
- Trial court granted a new trial on sufficiency grounds, Goodman Distribution moved to reconsider, and the court ultimately affirmed the original verdict on appeal.
- The appellate court held the evidence factually sufficient to support 50% negligence by Enright and the zero damages findings, and upheld the $15,199 past medical expenses award in light of medical evidence and testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Enright’s negligence, 50% attribution, is supported by factually sufficient evidence | Enright argues he could not be negligent since he faced away from the forklift when the unit slipped | Goodman Distribution contends Enright voluntarily participated in loading and should bear 50% fault | Yes, supported by substantial evidence that Enright voluntarily assisted and risked harm on the trailer. |
| Whether the zero damages for past physical pain are against the weight of the evidence | Enright asserts his long-term back pain and 2008 surgery show compensable pain | Goodman Distribution contends evidence supports no compensable pain given pre-existing conditions and alternative explanations | Yes, the zero damages finding for past pain is not against the weight of the evidence. |
| Whether zero damages for past/future disfigurement and physical impairment are supported | Enright contends there is impairment/disfigurement from the accident | Goodman Distribution argues no objective disfigurement or impairment proven related to the 2005 accident | Yes, the jury reasonably resolved conflicting testimony; zero damages upheld. |
| Whether $15,199 past medical expenses award is supported by the evidence | Enright seeks $106,927.52 for past medical expenses including surgery | Defendant argues only bruise-related expenses are recoverable; other treatments were unnecessary | Yes, the award is supported by evidence of initial medical visits and related costs; rational basis shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dow Chemical Co. v. Francis, 46 S.W.3d 237 (Tex. 2001) (standard for reviewing sufficiency against great weight of evidence when reviewing claims)
- Golden Eagle Archery, Inc. v. Jackson, 116 S.W.3d 757 (Tex. 2003) (juror credibility and weight of evidence in sufficiency review)
- Blizzard v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 756 S.W.2d 801 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1988) (zero damages for pain despite medical expenses with potential objective injury)
- McDonald v. Dankworth, 212 S.W.3d 336 (Tex.App.-Austin 2006) (sufficiency standard for negligence apportionment evidence)
- Gainsco County Mut. Ins. Co. v. Martinez, 27 S.W.3d 97 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2000) (support for zero pain damages despite medical expenses where causation is disputed)
- Lamb v. Franklin, 976 S.W.2d 339 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 1998) (upholding zero pain damages where alternative causes proven)
- Hyler v. Boytor, 823 S.W.2d 425 (Tex.App.-Houston 1st Dist. 1992) (zero pain damages upheld amid conflicting evidence)
- Chadbourne v. Cook, 2000 WL 156955 (Tex. App.-Dallas) (Tex. App.-Dallas 2000) (support for pain damages being disallowed when evidence weak or not linked to injury)