(Vernon 1987)), and personal injuries, Walter Elizondo obtained a judgment against appellant for $20,796. In a trial to a jury for deceptive trade practices, violations of the Vehicle Installment Sale Act (.Ann. We find that sufficient evidence supports the trial court's judgment. No allegation was ever made at trial that Elizondo teased or provoked the dog in any way. In fact, he was completely unaware of J.R.'s presence until he was bitten. Elizondo testified that appellant did not warn him about the dog. He further claimed that he warned Elizondo about the dog before he allowed him on the premises. Appellant stated that, because the dog was dangerous, he posted a "Beware of Dog" sign. bit another man who was an invitee on the car lot. Appellant admitted that the dog was dangerous (although "not really that dangerous") and that was why he kept it on the car lot. belonged to appellant's son, but appellant kept the dog on the premises after closing, using it as a guard dog. Appellant originally bought the dog as a pet for his children.To impose strict liability on the owner or keeper of a dangerous domesticated animal, the plaintiff must prove that: 1) the animal is of a vicious, dangerous, or mischievous nature, 2) the owner or keeper has actual or constructive knowledge of such characteristics, and 3) the injury or damage resulted from such propensities of which the owner or keeper had knowledge. Therefore, appellant argues that, as a matter of law, liability cannot be imposed. He further claims that there is no evidence, or insufficient evidence, to support deemed findings on these issues. By point two, appellant complains that no jury questions were submitted, and no findings obtained, to establish that appellant owned the dog and that the dog was vicious.As such, the amended petition did not divest the trial court of jurisdiction. The record does not show that Elizondo's amendment did anything other than seek additional attorney's fees accruing due to the further prosecution of the suit. Appellant never excepted to the amended petition, nor claimed that Elizondo pleaded in bad faith. Here, the county court at law properly acquired jurisdiction over the case when Elizondo pleaded an amount "within the trial court's jurisdiction" in his original petition. Our Supreme Court has held that a plaintiff may amend his petition to an amount exceeding the jurisdictional limits of the court if, by the subsequent amendment, the plaintiff seeks only additional damages which have resulted due to the passage of time.Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest are excluded from the amount in controversy in the Cameron County Court at Law. It includes actual damages, exemplary damages, and attorney's fees. Generally, the allegations in the plaintiff's petition determine the amount in controversy. In this amended petition, Elizondo specifically pleaded $15,000 in actual damages, $5,000 in exemplary damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and $4,000 in attorney's fees for preparation and trial of the case. However, the amount in his First Amended Original Petition, filed later, exceeded the county court at law's maximum limit. Elizondo's original petition stated that "the amount in controversy is within the court's jurisdictional limit." TEX.R.CIV.P. By his first point of error, appellant claims the trial court did not have subject matter jurisdiction because Elizondo pleaded an amount in controversy beyond the trial court's jurisdictional limit.361 (1960), we find that sufficient evidence supports the omitted findings that appellant kept the dog and that it bit Elizondo because it was vicious. Corpus Christi 1981, writ ref'd n.r.e.), and Calvert, No Evidence and Insufficient Evidence Points of Error, 38 Tex.L.Rev. Applying the well-known standard from Pool v. Fort Worth 1937, writ dism'd w.o.j.) see also 3 Tex.Jur.3d Animal ยง 73 (1980). Corpus Christi 1990), rev'd on other grounds, 813 S.W.2d 489 (Tex. A defendant need not own the dog to be liable for injuries the animal causes by biting if the defendant knows the animal is vicious and allows a relative to keep it on his property. Central Texas Production Credit Assoc., 503 S.W.2d 234 (Tex. Therefore, we will deem found any elements omitted from the charge which are necessarily referable to the cause of action and which are supported by sufficient evidence in the record. Appellant did not object to the jury charge as it was submitted.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |