physical pain and mental anguish as separate elements of damages
Courts have held that physical pain and
mental anguish are in fact separate and distinct elements of damage for
personal injuries. See SunBridge
Healthcare Corp. v. Penny, 160 S.W.3d 230, 248 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2005, no
pet.); Leyendecker v. Harlow, 189
S.W.2d 706, 711 (Tex.Civ.App.-Galveston 1945, writ ref'd w.o.m.); see also Sw. Tex. Coors, Inc. v. Morales,
948 S.W.2d 948, 954 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1997, no writ) (Green, J.,
concurring).
SOURCE:
EL PASO COURT OF APPEALS - 08-10-00261-CV – 2/15/2012
Nowak also points out that the Texas
Pattern Jury Charges place physical pain and mental anguish together as one
element of damages. The pattern charges serve as a guide only and are not
binding on trial courts. See Styers v.
Schindler Elevator Corp., 115 S.W.3d 321, 325-26 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2003,
pet. denied). Given that physical pain and mental anguish are separate elements
of damage, the court did not abuse its considerable discretion in submitting
them that way, rather than following the pattern charge.
We also note that the jury was
instructed to "[c]onsider each element separately" and not to
"award any sum of money on any element if you have otherwise, under some
other element, awarded a sum of money for the same loss. That is, do not
compensate twice for the same loss, if any." The Texas Supreme Court has
approved this type of instruction. See
Golden Eagle, 116 S.W.3d at 770-71. Unless the record indicates otherwise,
we presume the jury followed the instruction. See id. at 771.
SOURCE:
EL PASO COURT OF APPEALS - 08-10-00261-CV – 2/15/2012
No comments:
Post a Comment