Jesus Cavazos v. Pay and Save, Inc. d/b/a Lowe's Marketplace--Appeal from 99th District Court of Lubbock County (dissenting)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 07-11-0132-CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AMARILLO PANEL D SEPTEMBER 29, 2011 ______________________________ JESUS CAVAZOS, APPELLANT V. PAY AND SAVE, INC. D/B/A LOWE'S MARKETPLACE, APPELLEE _________________________________ FROM THE 99TH DISTRICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY; NO. 2010-550,659; HONORABLE WILLIAM C. SOWDER, JUDGE PRESIDING _______________________________ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ. DISSENTING OPINION I respectfully dissent. While I do agree that the partial reporter's record obligates us to presume that the record supports the trial court's judgment, Richards v. Schion, 969 S.W.2d 131, 133 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1998, no pet.) (holding that "[w]hen an appellant appeals with a partial reporter's record but does not provide the list of points as required by rule 34.6(c)(1), it creates the presumption that the omitted portions support the trial court's findings"), I would not interpret the Texas Supreme Court's decision in Haygood v. De Escabedo, No. 09-0377, 2011 Tex. LEXIS 514 (Tex. July 1, 2011), as obligating us to presume that a plaintiff must first prove to a jury the amount of medical or health care expenses actually paid or incurred in order to arrive at a verdict. Under the facts of this case, we must conclude that the trial court, after applying § 41.015 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code,1 found that the evidence supported a recovery of damages totaling $3,647.75. In a comparative negligence case, because a court is required to reduce the amount of recoverable damages by a percentage equal to the claimant's percentage of responsibility, and because the jury found Cavazos to be 49% responsible for his own damages, the trial court should have entered a judgment awarding Cavazos damages of $1,860.35. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 33.012 (West 2008). Furthermore, a recalculation of damages requires that the trial court recalculate prejudgment interest. Conclusion Accordingly, I would reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Patrick A. Pirtle Justice 1 Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 41.015 (West 2008). The Final Judgment entered in this case specifically recites that the trial court applied § 41.015. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
