Jackson, Ronald v. Golden Eagle Archery, Inc.

143 S.W.3d 477, 2004 Tex. App. LEXIS 7334, 2004 WL 1812723
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedAugust 12, 2004
Docket09-96-00302-CV
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 143 S.W.3d 477 (Jackson, Ronald v. Golden Eagle Archery, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Jackson, Ronald v. Golden Eagle Archery, Inc., 143 S.W.3d 477, 2004 Tex. App. LEXIS 7334, 2004 WL 1812723 (Tex. Ct. App. 2004).

Opinion

OPINION ON REMAND

DON BURGESS, Justice.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This is the third time this case has been before our court. In our first decision, we considered alleged juror misconduct and the constitutionality of Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 327(b) and Texas Rule of Evidence 606(b), both of which limit proof of juror misconduct. See Jackson v. Golden Eagle Archery, Inc., 974 S.W.2d 952 (Tex. App.-Beaumont 1998) (Jackson I). We found Rule 327(b) unconstitutional and that jury misconduct had occurred. Accordingly, we reversed the judgment and remanded the cause for another trial.

On appeal, the Supreme Court of Texas held Rules 327(b) and 606(b) neither deprived litigants of a fair trial under the Texas Constitution nor failed to afford litigants due process, and there was not competent evidence of juror misconduct. See Golden Eagle Archery, Inc. v. Jackson, 24 S.W.3d 362 (Tex.2000) {Jackson II). The Texas Supreme Court remanded the case to this court to consider issues not previously addressed.

In our second decision, we held the jury’s failure to award any damages for one category of non-economic damages was so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be manifestly unjust. See Jackson v. Golden Eagle Archery, Inc., 29 S.W.3d 925 (Tex. App.-Beaumont 2000) {Jackson III). We again reversed the judgment and remanded the cause for another trial.

On appeal, the Supreme Court of Texas found we had failed to properly apply the standard of review set forth in Pool v. Ford Motor Co., 715 S.W.2d 629, 635 (Tex. 1986), and articulated a new standard for factual sufficiency review when evidence pertains to more than one category of damages. See Golden Eagle Archery, Inc. v. Jackson, 116 S.W.3d 757 (Tex.2003) {Jackson IV). The Texas Supreme Court again remanded the case to this court, this time to conduct a factual sufficiency review under the new standard and in compliance with Pool v. Ford Motor Co. 1

STATEMENT OF FACTS

This appeal involves a personal injury suit. Ronald Jackson sustained injuries as a result of a bow accident occurring on October 5, 1991. Jackson’s wife bought him a Golden Eagle compound bow from a Wal-Mart store. When Jackson drew back the string, the bow slipped out of his hand and a cable guard struck him in the right eye, causing severe injuries. Jack *479 son sued Golden Eagle Archery, Inc., Coleman Company, Inc., and Wal-Mart, Inc. for negligence and products liability. The trial court dismissed the claims against Coleman and Wal-Mart, leaving Golden Eagle as the sole defendant.

The jury failed to find the bow was defectively designed but found there was a defect in Golden Eagle’s marketing of the bow, which was a producing cause of the injury. The jury also found that Jackson himself was negligent and that his negligence proximately caused the injury. In apportioning the percentage of causation, the jury found Jackson forty-five percent responsible and Golden Eagle fifty-five percent responsible. The jury found Jackson’s damages to be $25,393.10 for medical care, $2,500 for physical pain and mental anguish, $2,500 for loss of vision, $0 for physical impairment other than loss of vision, $1,500 for disfigurement, and $4,600 for loss of earnings in the past. The trial court entered judgment for $20,071.15, plus $6,664.72 in prejudgment interest and court costs.

In his appeal, Jackson raises five issues contesting the awards for the non-economic damages. The evidence relating to those damages is set forth below.

EVIDENCE

Jason Todd Jackson was present at the time of the injury. Regarding the accident, Jason testified it “hit him in the eye. And I remember him falling — they caught him. He was about to go on his knees and the bow was on the ground and there was this piece come off of it and they rushed him in the house.” Jason “... could see he was in pain then and they all just helped him in the house.” Jackson was falling to the ground, and “was right on his knees.” There “was blood everywhere. .. .There was blood on — it was Billy. It was on his truck, and it was on the porch. Where they had walked — there was a trail of it toward where they had led him in the house.” Jason testified that Jackson has headaches, and that he is around welding a lot and the injured eye easily gets burned.

James Moe worked with Jackson at the time of the injury. Moe visited Jackson in the hospital and said “he looked pretty black. That thing had his face all swolled up. Like I said, what I could remember of it, he look pretty well bruised up.” Jackson went back to work for Moe at Temple. Moe testified Jackson “was a good hand. He worked — he still works good.” Moe was asked whether Jackson “burn[s] as good after being injured as he did before?” Moe said that before the injury “he done pretty good. I thought he done a good job.” As for after the injury, Moe said, “I wouldn’t say it was real good, you know. It was enough to where he could get by.” Moe testified that before the injury, on a scale of 1 to 10, he would rate Jackson 7 or 8 as a burner. After the injury, he would probably say 4 to 5.

Billy Jackson Glass knew Ronald and Lisa Jackson and was at the Jackson home when the injury occurred. Glass did not see Jackson pull the bow string back but heard “a noise, like thud, a whop.” It caught his attention and he looked back to Jackson. Jackson was in a half-crouched position, going to the ground. Glass and Cecil, Jackson’s former brother-in-law, took Jackson into the kitchen. Glass said Jackson “was in bad shape. He had a wound to his head.” Jackson had his hands over his face, and Glass saw the blood coming through his fingers. Glass did not actually see Jackson’s wound until they got to the kitchen sink and Glass pulled his hand down. Glass said, “[h]is head was laid open.... Right above his eye.” Glass said it was a bad cut and they could not stop the bleeding. They took *480 Jackson to Baptist Hospital in Orange; on the way, Jackson was incoherent, coughing a lot, bleeding a lot, and experiencing nausea. Glass described Jackson at that time as, “[b]lack, blue, his face swollen, a lot of blood, hurting.” The wound continued to bleed “even after the emergency room.”

Glass has worked with Jackson since his surgery in Houston. Glass had observed Jackson doing close-up work before the injury. When asked to compare Jackson’s close-up work before and after the injury, Glass stated, “there is a difference ... you have to be real precise ... I have worked around him since this accident; and I can see a change in his performability, I guess you could call it, as far as being good. There is a big change.”

Lisa Gail Jackson was present when her husband was injured.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

King v. Cardinal Services
Fifth Circuit, 2022

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
143 S.W.3d 477, 2004 Tex. App. LEXIS 7334, 2004 WL 1812723, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jackson-ronald-v-golden-eagle-archery-inc-texapp-2004.