PNS Stores, Inc. v. Munguia
2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 261
Tex. App.2016Background
- Munguia was struck on the head in a Big Lots store when two 32‑oz bottles of deck wash fell from a top shelf; store employee Northrup acknowledged he had dislodged the bottles.
- Munguia sought immediate and later medical care (ER, MRI/MRA, neurology, neuropsychological testing) and reported persistent headaches, dizziness, tinnitus, memory problems, personality change, and functional limitations.
- Plaintiff’s experts (treating neurologist Dr. Lotfi and neuropsychologist Dr. Pollock) linked the symptoms to a concussion/closed‑head injury and testified they persisted for years; defense experts disputed causation and permanence.
- PNS Stores offered a merchandising/marketing expert (Rhonda Harper) to testify about display safety; the trial court excluded her testimony for lack of safety‑expert qualifications and inadequate foundation.
- Jury allocated 90% fault to PNS, 10% to Munguia, and awarded roughly $1.048 million (including awards for past medical expenses, pain and suffering, and past/future physical impairment); on appeal the court found past medical expenses excessive and suggested remittitur, otherwise affirmed as modified.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of defendant’s merchandising expert | Harper would explain industry display/stocking practices and show no unsafe condition existed | Harper lacked safety training, didn’t inspect scene, relied on photos and counsel‑provided facts, so unqualified and foundation insufficient | Exclusion affirmed: Harper’s expertise was marketing, not safety; lack of scene inspection and foundation justified exclusion |
| Sufficiency of past medical expenses award | Medical bills and records support past medical expenses (plaintiff sought remittitur if needed) | Evidence showed lower provable medical charges (~$17k); jury award ($25k) unsupported | Court found award excessive in part; remittitur suggested and judgment modified to $18,916.43 after plaintiff’s timely remittitur |
| Sufficiency of awards for physical impairment (past and future) | Evidence of long‑term cognitive decline, balance/tinnitus issues, activity limitations, work impairment and testimony from treating experts supports substantial impairment | Defendant argued plaintiff resumed some activities, expert testimony disputed permanence, and awards duplicate pain & suffering | Affirmed: evidence legally and factually sufficient to support $50,000 (past) and $420,000 (future) impairment awards |
| Sufficiency of past and future pain and mental anguish | Persistent headaches, tinnitus, personality change, depression, and testimony about duration/severity support non‑economic damages | Defendant emphasized transient aspects, plaintiff’s functionality after injury, and defense experts’ views that symptoms should have resolved | Affirmed: factually sufficient evidence supported $150,000 (past) and $520,000 (future) awards; no new trial for excessiveness |
Key Cases Cited
- Broders v. Heise, 924 S.W.2d 148 (Tex. 1996) (standard for admissibility and qualifications of expert testimony)
- Gammill v. Jack Williams Chevrolet, Inc., 972 S.W.2d 713 (Tex. 1998) (expert must have special knowledge on the precise matter of opinion)
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (legal‑sufficiency review standards)
- Pool v. Ford Motor Co., 715 S.W.2d 629 (Tex. 1986) (factual‑sufficiency review standard)
- Golden Eagle Archery, Inc. v. Jackson, 116 S.W.3d 757 (Tex. 2003) (instructions and avoiding double recovery across damage elements)
- Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, L.L.P. v. Nat’l Dev. & Research Corp., 299 S.W.3d 106 (Tex. 2009) (remittitur authority where part of verdict lacks evidentiary support)
- Parkway Co. v. Woodruff, 901 S.W.2d 434 (Tex. 1995) (definition and proof required for mental anguish damages)
- Larson v. Cactus Utility Co., 730 S.W.2d 640 (Tex. 1987) (proper course to suggest remittitur when part of verdict unsupported)