338 S.W.3d 719
Tex. App.2011Background
- Lease of commercial building for 96 months starting 2000; ACT complained of defects; Park North attempted repairs; ACT vacated in 2006; suit for breach of lease; ACT asserted constructive eviction and other defenses; Park North asserted waiver, estoppel, force majeure, laches, assumption of risk, and as-is waiver of warranties; trial court denied Park North's proposed jury questions on affirmative defenses; jury found ACT constructively evicted but awarded no damages; take-nothing judgment entered.
- Both parties submitted jury questions; trial court’s charge addressed ACT’s liability and constructive eviction without Park North’s defense-specific questions; no damages awarded on constructive eviction claim.
- The appeal concerns whether the court abused discretion by not submitting Park North’s proposed jury questions on its affirmative defenses.
- The court affirmed the take-nothing judgment, holding the error, if any, was harmless since no damages were awarded on ACT’s constructive eviction claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by not submitting Park North’s proposed defense questions | Park North | ACT | No reversible error; harmless |
Key Cases Cited
- Tex. Dep't of Human Servs. v. E.B., 802 S.W.2d 647 (Tex.1990) (standard for reviewing submission of jury questions)
- Henry v. Masson, 333 S.W.3d 825 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2010) (abuse of discretion standard for jury charges)
- Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc., 701 S.W.2d 238 (Tex.1985) (abuse of discretion and guiding rules for submissions)
- Union Pac. R.R. Co. v. Williams, 85 S.W.3d 162 (Tex.2002) (submission of questions raised by pleadings and evidence)
- Halmos v. Bombardier Aerospace Corp., 314 S.W.3d 606 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2010) (properly requested question raised by pleadings and evidence)
- Elbaor v. Smith, 845 S.W.2d 240 (Tex.1992) (evidence supports submission of a requested question)
- Barnett v. Coppell N. Tex. Court, Ltd., 123 S.W.3d 804 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2003) (harmful error required for reversal when no damages issue exists)
- Exxon Corp. v. Perez, 842 S.W.2d 629 (Tex.1992) (trial court error in denying a properly requested question on a viable defense)
- Easley v. Castle Manor Nursing Home, 731 S.W.2d 743 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1987) (no reversible error where no damages challenged on appeal)