HOUSTON – A Harris County woman whose vehicle was hit while driving in Houston had a judgment awarding damages affirmed at the appellate court level.
State Chief Justice Sherry Radack, on the bench of the 1st District Court of Appeals, issued a 26-page ruling on Nov. 1 affirming the Harris County 270th District Court decision in the lawsuit filed by Diane Davis against Brandan Vaughters that denied Davis' motion for a new trial regarding the damages awarded to her.
"...The jury could have reasonably concluded either that Davis was not suffering the pain, anguish or impairment that she alleged or that any such pain, anguish, or impairment was caused by other factors and not caused by the collision," Radack wrote. "We hold that the evidence is factually sufficient to support the jury's decision not to award Davis damages for past and future physical pain, past and future mental anguish and past and future impairment."
Diane sued Vaughters for damages arising from a 2013 accident over allegations that Vaughters was negligent while driving his vehicle at the moment of the crash.
"...While Davis was traveling east on W. 20th St. in Houston, Vaughters was traveling south on Durham Street," the ruling states. "At the intersection of W. 20th St. and Durham, Vaughters did not stop at a red signal light governing traffic in his direction, entered into the intersection, and collided with Davis’s car, striking the driver’s side door."
Davis claimed, per the ruling, that Vaughters "had failed to apply his brakes, to control his speed, to stop at the traffic light, and to avoid the collision," and the damages sought in the suit were "for past and future: medical expenses, 'physical and mental pain and anguish,' and physical impairment."
Vaughters testified that he was looking at the GPS at the moment of the collision and that he did not see the red light at the intersection. A jury awarded Davis $6,163 in damages against Vaughters after almost two years of litigation.
Davis filed a motion for a new trial disputing the amount of damages, but it was denied by the lower court. She alleged the damages awarded were "against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence," the ruling states.
1st District Court of Appeals case number 01-17-00612-CV