law-directed-verdict | judgment non obstante veredicto JNOV | legal sufficiency review |
WHEN IS DIRECTED VERDICT PROPER? When can appeal succeed?
An appeal from the denial of a motion for directed verdict is in essence a challenge to the legal sufficiency
of the evidence. Solares v. Solares, 232 S.W.3d 873, 878 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2007, no pet.). An appellant
presenting a legal-sufficiency challenge on an issue on which he bore the burden of proof must demonstrate the
evidence conclusively established all vital facts to support the issue. Id. at 878-79. In particular, a directed
verdict is proper for a plaintiff if the evidence conclusively proves facts that establish his right to recovery.
Lemaster v. Top Level Printing Ink, Inc., 136 S.W.3d 745, 747 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2004, no pet.); see Sherman v.
Elkowitz, 130 S.W.3d 316, 319 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, no pet.) (recognizing that directed verdict is
proper if, among other circumstances, the evidence conclusively proves a fact that establishes a party's right to
judgment as a matter of law). Evidence is conclusive “only if reasonable people could not differ in their
conclusions, a matter that depends on the facts of each case." City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802, 816
(Tex. 2005). We will credit the favorable evidence if reasonable jurors could and disregard the contrary
evidence unless reasonable jurors could not. Id. at 827.
Montgomery v. Byrd (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Aug. 25, 2009)(Seymore)
(breach of contract and counterclaim, offsetting claims after dissolution of business relationship with settlement
and release; employees brought lawsuit that entailed liability for both parties)
(directed verdict should have been granted, only attorney's fees issue for the jury to decide)
REVERSED AND REMANDED: Opinion by Justice Seymore
Before Chief Justice Hedges, Justices Anderson and Seymore
14-07-01015-CV Chester Montgomery v. Richard Byrd
Appeal from County Civil Court at Law No 4 of Harris County
Trial Court Judge: Roberta Anne Lloyd
As explained below, we conclude the trial court erred by denying Montgomery's motion for directed verdict
because he conclusively proved facts establishing his right to recovery.
DIRECTED VERDICT: Standard of Review on Appeal
In reviewing an instructed verdict, we determine whether there is more than a scintilla of probative evidence to
raise a fact issue on the material questions presented. Coastal Transp. Co. v. Crown Cent. Petroleum Corp.,
136 S.W.3d 227, 233 (Tex. 2004); Szczepanik v. First S. Trust Co., 883 S.W.2d 648, 649 (Tex. 1994) (per
curiam). We consider all of the evidence in a light most favorable to the party against whom the verdict was
instructed and give the losing party the benefit of all reasonable inferences created by the evidence. Coastal
Transp., 136 S.W.3d at 234. If there is any conflicting evidence of probative value on any theory of recovery,
an instructed verdict is improper and the case must be reversed and remanded for jury determination of that
issue. Szczepanik, 883 S.W.2d at 649.
Murchison v. Pham (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Aug. 11, 2009)(Guzman)
(no negligence shown in car collision suit, directed verdict affirmed)
AFFIRMED: Opinion by Justice Guzman
Before Justices Anderson, Guzman and Boyce
14-08-00080-CV Gary Murchison v. Minh Quoc Pham
Appeal from 80th District Court of Harris County
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Lynn Bradshaw-Hull
Directed Verdict
A trial court may properly grant a directed verdict if no evidence of probative force raises a material fact issue.
Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. v. Fin. Review Servs., Inc., 29 S.W.3d 74, 77 (Tex. 2000). We review a directed
verdict under the same standard of review as a legal sufficiency, or no-evidence, challenge. See City of Keller
v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802, 823 (Tex. 2005). Thus, a directed verdict for a defendant may be appropriate if the
plaintiff fails to present evidence raising a fact issue essential to the plaintiff's right of recovery. See Cherqui v.
Westheimer Street Festival Corp., 116 S.W.3d 337, 343 (Tex. App.- Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, no pet.).
We will consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom the verdict was directed,
crediting favorable evidence if reasonable jurors could and disregarding contrary evidence unless reasonable
jurors could not. See AVCO Corp. v. Interstate Sw., Ltd., 251 S.W.3d 632, 667 (Tex. App.- Houston [14th Dist.]
2007, pet. denied).
Robertson v. Barnes (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] July 30, 2009)(Sullivan)
(home owner, consumer law, DTPA, home in poor condition, stucco problem, seller was not required to disclose
prior water damage because repair was not "structural" which the court construes as referring to load-bearing)
AFFIRMED: Opinion by Justice Sullivan
Before Justices Brock Yates, Guzman and Sullivan
14-07-00791-CV Chris Robertson v. Joe Barnes and Sandion, Ltd d/b/a Coldwell Banker United, Realtors
Appeal from 280th District Court of Harris County
Trial Court Judge: TONY LINDSAY
A trial court may instruct a verdict in favor of a defendant if no evidence of probative force raises a fact issue on
the material questions in the suit. See Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. v. Fin. Review Servs., Inc., 29 S.W.3d 74, 77
(Tex. 2000). A directed verdict in favor of a defendant may be proper when (1) a plaintiff fails to present
evidence raising a fact issue essential to the plaintiff’s right of recovery; or (2) the plaintiff admits or the
evidence conclusively establishes a defense to the plaintiff’s cause of action. See id.
We review the trial court’s granting of a directed verdict by following the same standard for assessing legal
sufficiency of the evidence. See City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802, 809-828 (Tex. 2005).
When reviewing the legal sufficiency of the evidence, we consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the
nonmovant and indulge every reasonable inference that would support the verdict. Id. at 823. When reviewing
a directed verdict, we must credit favorable evidence if a reasonable factfinder could and disregard contrary
evidence unless a reasonable factfinder could not. See id. at 827.
Champion v. Great Dane LP, No. 14-08-00310-CV (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] May 7, 2009)(Frost)(product
liability, design defect, defective manufacturing)
HOUSTON APPELLATE COURT CASES | TEXAS CASE LAW |