HOUSTON — A man who was injured when his truck was rear-ended and then lost his suit alleging negligence, was denied his appeal after challenging one of the questions given to the jury by the trial court relating to proximate cause of injuries.
According to the Oct. 15 Texas 14th Court of Appeals ruling, Roel Saenz-Guerrero filed an appeal of a Harris County District Court jury verdict that ruled in favor of Jeffrey Gardner. Saenz-Guerrero when he challenged one of the questions given to the jury by the trial court.
Question No. 1 asked did "negligence, if any, of Jeffrey Gardner proximately cause the injuries in question?"
The appeals court's majority opinion overruled Saenz-Guerrero’s challenge and affirmed the trial court’s final judgment.
According to the court documentation, In August 2015, Saenz-Guerrero was hit from behind by a car driven by Gardner and was treated for neck and back pain. Sanez-Guerrero filed a negligence claim against Gardner, which ended with a jury verdict in favor of Gardner. In his appeal, Saenz-Guerrero argued the trial court should have used “occurrence” instead of “injuries” in Question No. 1 because “there were no allegations of proportionate responsibility, contributory negligence, comparative fault, or pre- or post-occurrence, injury-producing conduct.” He also challenged the use of "injuries" in the question arguing it was "either patently or latently ambiguous."
"We reject Saenz-Guerrero’s argument," the appeals court ruled. "Neither the cited pattern jury charge comment nor Nabors Well Services, Ltd. [case] addresses the term at issue here, namely, the use of the word 'injuries' in the trial court’s negligence jury question. Likewise, these authorities do not prohibit the use of 'injuries' in a negligence jury question."
In her dissenting opinion, Justice Margaret Poissant stated, "Although the trial court’s use of 'injuries' rather than 'occurrence' would not be erroneous in every case, in this instance, based on the strongly disputed medical evidence, I would hold the trial court erred. Because that error probably caused the rendition of an improper judgment, the error is reversible."