Gary Ginn v. Robert Pierce, 595 S.W.3d 762

Collision on Eldridge Parkway: Pierce stopped his pickup behind traffic, then reversed about ten feet and struck Ginn’s stationary car directly behind him.
Pierce admitted the collision was “totally his fault” but maintained that admission of fault did not equal legal negligence.
Ginn moved for a directed verdict on liability after the evidence closed; the trial court denied the motion.
The trial court submitted a negligence/proximate-cause question to the jury; the jury answered “no,” returned no damages findings, and the court rendered a take‑nothing judgment.
On appeal Ginn argued the evidence conclusively proved Pierce’s negligence and proximate cause; the court reviewed the directed‑verdict ruling based on the record as it existed when the motion was decided.
The court concluded the evidence established negligence and proximate cause as a matter of law, reversed the judgment, and remanded for a new trial on liability and damages.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether directed‑verdict sufficiency should be measured against the jury charge given	Ginn: review should be against the charge submitted because charge wording effectively found negligence	Pierce: review of directed‑verdict denial is limited to the record when the trial court ruled (before charge was settled)	Court: Overruled Ginn — review limited to the record at time of the directed‑verdict ruling; charge construction arguments irrelevant to that review
Whether the evidence conclusively proved Pierce’s negligence	Ginn: testimony, photos, and circumstances show Pierce failed to use ordinary care in backing and would have seen Ginn’s car if he had looked	Pierce: he looked in mirrors and the rear view and likely didn’t see Ginn because the car was in a blind spot; he denied negligence	Court: Held evidence, viewed favorably to Pierce, nonetheless conclusively established Pierce failed to use ordinary care and that his negligence proximately caused the collision
Whether the denial of the directed verdict was harmful and the proper remedy	Ginn: erroneous denial prejudiced him because the jury never determined damages; seeks judgment on liability and damages or new trial	Pierce: contends liability was contested and jury verdict should stand	Court: Error was harmful; because liability is contested and damages are unliquidated, court reversed and remanded for a new trial on liability and damages

Perry Homes v. Cull, 258 S.W.3d 580 (Tex. 2008) (review of directed‑verdict rulings limited to record when court ruled)
City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (standards for reviewing evidence and factual sufficiency)
Transcontinental Ins. Co. v. Crump, 330 S.W.3d 211 (Tex. 2010) (proximate cause elements: cause in fact and foreseeability)
20801, Inc. v. Parker, 249 S.W.3d 392 (Tex. 2008) (definition of negligence/ordinary care)
State Highway Dept. v. Hinson, 517 S.W.2d 308 (Tex. Civ. App.—Corpus Christi 1974) (backing collisions and driver duty precedent)
Jordan v. Walker, 448 S.W.2d 837 (Tex. Civ. App.—Houston 1969) (driver duty when reversing)
Hoey v. Solt, 236 S.W.2d 244 (Tex. Civ. App.—San Antonio 1951) (reversing cases where driver failed to observe rear and hit vehicle)
Nat'l City Bank of Indiana v. Ortiz, 401 S.W.3d 867 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013) (directed‑verdict standard when claimant bears burden)