Monsanto Co. v. Johnson

696 S.W.2d 558, 28 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 480, 1985 Tex. LEXIS 1382
CourtTexas Supreme Court
DecidedJune 5, 1985
DocketC-3445
StatusPublished
Cited by17 cases

This text of 696 S.W.2d 558 (Monsanto Co. v. Johnson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Monsanto Co. v. Johnson, 696 S.W.2d 558, 28 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 480, 1985 Tex. LEXIS 1382 (Tex. 1985).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Both Monsanto Company and Annie Belle Johnson seek reversals from a court of appeals judgment in these wrongful death and survival causes of action growing out of an incident on Monsanto’s premises which resulted in the death of Mrs. Johnson’s husband, B.B. Johnson. A jury awarded Mrs. Johnson $710,000 in wrongful death damages, $2,908 in survival action damages and $250,000 in exemplary damages. In rendering judgment, the trial court set aside the survival action and exemplary damages awards. The court of appeals reinstated the $250,000 exemplary damages award and in all other things af *559 firmed the judgment of the trial court. 675 S.W.2d 305 (1984). Mrs. Johnson assigns as error in this court the denial of prejudgment interest on her damages. Monsanto claims evidentiary errors as to all damages and as to its knowledge of the premises defect which served as the basis of the suit. We refuse both applications for writ of error, no reversible error.

In refusing Mrs. Johnson’s application, we do so with full recognition of our decision in Cavnar v. Quality Control Parking, Inc., 696 S.W.2d 549 (Tex. 1985). There are no survival action damages in this case on which prejudgment interest can be awarded. Pursuant to Cavnar, prejudgment interest is not recoverable for exemplary damages. As to the wrongful death damages, Mrs. Johnson, like the heirs of Geraldine Cavnar, failed to segregate damages preceding the date of trial from those that would occur in the future. Therefore, following the rule posited in Cavnar, Mrs. Johnson is entitled to recover no prejudgment interest. We find no error in the judgment of the court of appeals disposing of the points urged by Monsanto. Accordingly, both applications for writ of error are refused, no reversible error.

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

Related

Pilgrim's Pride Corp. v. Smoak
134 S.W.3d 880 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2004)
Domingues v. City of San Antonio
985 S.W.2d 505 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1999)
Apache Corp. v. Moore
891 S.W.2d 671 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1994)
Lopez v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co.
847 S.W.2d 330 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1993)
Johnson v. King
821 S.W.2d 425 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1992)
Loyd Elec. Co., Inc. v. Millett
767 S.W.2d 476 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1989)
Town East Ford Sales, Inc. v. Gray
730 S.W.2d 796 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1987)
McCann v. Brown
725 S.W.2d 822 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1987)
Vidor Walgreen Pharmacy v. Fisher
722 S.W.2d 744 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1986)
Merit Drilling Co. v. Honish
715 S.W.2d 87 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1986)
Strick Corp. v. Keen
709 S.W.2d 292 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1986)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
696 S.W.2d 558, 28 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 480, 1985 Tex. LEXIS 1382, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/monsanto-co-v-johnson-tex-1985.