K.J. v. USA Water Polo, Inc.
2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 6926
Tex. App.2012Background
- Appellants K.J. and V.J. sue USA Water Polo and others for civil claims including assault, negligence, fraud, and DTPA violations on behalf of minor EJ following an alleged hazing/sexual assault in Utah during a USAWP tournament.
- The trial presented conflicting eyewitness accounts about the alleged assault; EJ testified to the hazing and assault, others denied the core conduct.
- Jury found against EJ on assault and sexual assault; USAWP was not negligent and the DTPA claim was rejected.
- The trial court entered judgment for appellees; sanctions were later awarded against V.J. (mother) securing $4,125 plus post-judgment interest.
- Appellants timely appealed challenging multiple trial-court decisions and procedures, ultimately arguing cumulative error denied EJ a fair trial; the appellate court affirmed the judgment.
- The court discusses preservation, voir dire, abatement under the DTPA, sanctions, evidentiary rulings, and bench-record issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the assault finding was legally sufficient and preserved. | E.J. showed uncontroverted assault evidence. | No preservation; no proper legal-sufficiency challenge in trial court. | Issue overruled; not preserved for review. |
| Whether the voir dire question about awarding large damages was improper and prejudicial. | Question tested ability to follow law and award $2 million if warranted. | Commitment questions in civil cases are improper; discretion to refuse upheld. | Court did not abuse discretion; issue overruled. |
| Whether the DTPA abatement and related depositions during abatement rendered the proceeding a nullity. | Depositions and orders during abatement were void; waived abatement. | Waiver valid; abatement protocols satisfied; record supports admissibility. | Waiver valid; error not probable to cause improper judgment; issue overruled. |
| Whether the sanctions order against V.J. was void for lack of holding the signatory attorney to account. | Sanctions properly imposed against V.J. for signing a problematic affidavit. | Sanctions permissible against party; attorney not required to be sole target. | Court did not abuse discretion; issue overruled. |
| Whether failure to record certain bench conferences prejudiced appellants. | Unrecorded bench conferences hinder preservation of error. | Record reviewed; alleged errors harmless; issues lack merit. | Error not probable to cause improper judgment; issue overruled. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cecil v. Smith, 804 S.W.2d 509 (Tex.1991) (preservation of legal-sufficiency challenges in trial court)
- Hyundai Motor Co. v. Vasquez, 189 S.W.3d 743 (Tex.2006) (voir dire to uncover bias; broad discretion in civil voir dire)
- Davis v. State, 313 S.W.3d 317 (Tex.Crim.App.2010) (commitment questions in criminal cases allow range-of-law inquiry)
- Standefer v. State, 59 S.W.3d 177 (Tex.Crim.App.2001) (commitment questions where law requires following certain rules)
- Cardenas v. State, 325 S.W.3d 179 (Tex.Crim.App.2010) (range of punishment questions in criminal cases guiding voir dire)
- Taber v. Roush, 316 S.W.3d 139 (Tex.App.-Houst. [14th Dist.] 2010) (range of damages guidance in civil cases context)
- Kimball Hill Homes Tex., Inc., 969 S.W.2d 522 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1998) (distinguishes abatement/notice contexts for waiver-based resolution)
- Lane Bank Equip. Co. v. Smith S. Equip., Inc., 10 S.W.3d 308 (Tex.2000) (approval of sanctions-modification within same proceeding)