Robert E. Wright v. City of Austin--Appeal from 126th District Court of Travis County

Wright v. Austin IN THE COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT OF TEXAS,
AT AUSTIN
NO. 3-90-149-CV
ROBERT E. WRIGHT,

APPELLANT

 
vs.
CITY OF AUSTIN,

APPELLEE

 
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 126TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. 464,447, HONORABLE WILL WILSON, JUDGE

PER CURIAM

 

This appeal arises from a claim for workers' compensation benefits. Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann. arts. 8307c et seq. (Supp. 1991). (1) Appellant, Robert E. Wright, allegedly suffered an injury on June 7, 1988, while in the course and scope of his employment with appellee, the City of Austin. After appellant obtained an award from the Industrial Accident Board, appellee filed suit in the district court to have the award set aside. The jury found that appellant did not receive an injury in the course of his employment with appellee, and the trial court rendered judgment on the verdict against appellant.

In a single point of error, appellant argues that the jury's failure to find a job-related injury was so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be manifestly unjust. To complain on appeal of the factual sufficiency of the evidence to support a jury finding, an appellant must have raised the contention in a motion for new trial in the trial court. Tex. R. Civ. P. Ann. 324(b) (Supp. 1991); Cecil v. Smith, 804 S.W.2d 509 (Tex. 1991); Griffin v. Rowden 702 S.W.2d 692 (Tex. App. 1985, writ ref'd n.r.e.). The record does not show that appellant filed a motion for new trial in this cause. Accordingly, we overrule the point of error.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

 

[Before Justices Powers, Aboussie and Kidd]

Affirmed

Filed: May 15, 1991

[Do Not Publish]

1. This cause arose before the Workers' Compensation Act was amended effective January 1, 1991.