Nancy Elizabeth Bowman v. Jerry Davidson and Diana Davidson
06-14-00094-CV
Tex. App.May 19, 2015Background
- Bowman appeals a dog-bite case in Sixth Court of Appeals (Texarkana) from Harrison County trial.
- Bowman alleges the Davidsons knew Bubba had dangerous propensities and warned guests to avoid him.
- Davidsons admitted Bubba was aggressive toward strangers, protective of Diana, and difficult to control when Diana was not present.
- Davidsons admitted Bubba had previously bitten a person (Billy Strong) with teeth leaving a red mark and bruise.
- Davidsons testified they warned guests to avoid Bubba to prevent a bite, signaling notice of dangerous propensities.
- Bowman seeks reversal of the jury’s strict liability verdict and remand for damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do uncontroverted admissions prove strict liability? | Bowman; admissions show Bubba had dangerous propensities. | Davidsons; no prior incidents needed for strict liability; warnings are not admissions. | Yes; admissions support strict liability and warrant reversal. |
| Are warnings evidence of knowledge of propensities? | Bowman; warnings themselves show knowledge of danger. | Davidsons; warnings served safety, not admission of propensity. | Warnings corroborate knowledge of propensities and support reversal. |
| Is testimony about Bubba’s prior bite necessary for liability? | Bowman; prior bite (nip) suffices to show dangerous propensity. | Davidsons; only a bite, not a nip, constitutes prior incident. | Prior bite/nip evidence is uncontroverted and supports liability. |
Key Cases Cited
- Collora v. Navarro, 574 S.W.2d 65 (Tex. 1978) (uncontroverted testimony can support reversal (Collora rule))
- Marshall v. Ranne, 511 S.W.2d 255 (Tex. 1974) (knowledge or reason to know dangerous propensities standard)
- Mendoza v. Fidelity and Guaranty Ins. Underwriters, Inc., 606 S.W.2d 692 (Tex. 1980) (judicial admissions defined and conclusive effects discussed)
- Hamilton v. Motor Coach Industries, Inc., 569 S.W.2d 571 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1978) (propensity doctrine in domestic animals context)
- Hill v. Spencer & Son, Inc., 973 S.W.2d 772 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1998) (treatment of judicial admissions in Texarkana court)