Nancy Elizabeth Bowman v. Jerry Davidson and Diana Davidson

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided April 30, 2015·No. 06-14-00094-CV·Published

Opinion

ACCEPTED

06-14-00094-CV

SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS

TEXARKANA, TEXAS

4/30/2015 2:33:41 PM

DEBBIE AUTREY

CLERK

FILED IN 6th COURT OF APPEALS TEXARKANA, TEXAS 4/30/2015 2:33:41 PM DEBBIE AUTREY Clerk

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ................................................ .1 STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT ............................. 1 STATEMENT OF FACTS ................................................ 1 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ........................................ 2 ARGUMENT .......................................................... 3

I. BOWMAN IS NOT ENTITLED TO AFFIRMATNE JURY FINDINGS AS A MATTER OF LAW ON THE STRICT LIABILITY SUBMISSION

II. THE NEGATIVE ANSWER TO STRICT LIABILITY IS SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE .............................................. 3

III. BOWMAN IS NOT ENTITLED TO AFFIRMATIVE JURY FINDINGS AS A MATTER OF LAW ON STRICT LIABILITY CAUSATION

N. THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY ORDERED PLAINTIFFS TO PRODUCE PROOF OF OWNERSHIP OF ANY ANIMALS FOR WHICH PLAINTIFFS SEEKRECOVERY ................................................. 12

PRAYER ............................................................................................................................ 12 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE .................................................................................. 13 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE .......................................................................................... 13 APPENDIX ......................................................................................................................... 14

ii

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

A&N Collision Ctr. ofAddison, Inc. vs. Town ofAddison, 310 S.W. 3ro 191,193 (Tex.Civ.App.-Dallas 2010, no pet) .................................................. 4

STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT Appellees are of the opinion that oral argument would aid the Court in its analysis and evaluation of this record. Oral argument is therefore, hereby requested by Appellees.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Appellees lodge the following objections and disagreements to the following statements of fact contained in Appellant's Brief:

1. Appellant refers to a long time friend, Billy Strong, being "bitten" by Bubba.

Appellees would show that neither Billy Strong nor the Davidsons considered that incident to be a bite, but merely a "nip". When questioned by appellant's counsel, Strong read from the statement he signed that the dog "nipped me on the back of my leg." Appendix Tab 1, 30:11-14; and31:3-5. 4 RR, 94: 21-25.

Diana testified the Bubba is ve1y verbal when strangers come up and that he barks and jumps at the fence to give us the indication that someone is there.

She has signs out saying 'Beware of Dogs', because she wants people to be aware of them. She goes on to state that Bubba has never bitten anybody. 4 RR94:21-25.

2. Appellant states that when Bubba "bit" Strong, Diana had to holler at Bubba to turn Strong loose. Strong actually testified that he did not remember it as described by Diana in her testimony, but testified, "I know that's not what happened ... the dog ran and he nipped me on the leg and that was it. He let it go". Appendix Tab 1, 45:17 through 46:9.

3. Bowman states that although the Davidsons do not always described the prior incident with Strong as a bite, Strong ce1iainly does. Strong described the incident as a nip on multiple occasions. See references in No. 1 and 2 above.

4. Bowman states that the Davidsons put Bubba up when children come over because the children might get bit. Bubba is put up when children are around because they run around and heelers will tend to herd them. "Children don't tend to listen to you and they move real fast, and these are heelers."4 RR, l 02:

13-14.

5. Bowman contends there was a "propensity" for Bubba to be dangerous, citing the testimony of Jeny. It is interesting to note that counsel for Bowman continues to use the term "propensity'' when Jerry had ah·eady testified that he did not know the meaning of the word. 4 RR, 132:1-5.

6. Bowman referenced Jeny's testimony that he never knew when Bubba was going to "blow up". It should be noted that the tenn "blow up" was Bowman's counsel's tenninology, not from the mouth of Jerry. 4 RR, 149:25 through 150:5.

7. Bowman contends thattheDavidsons did nothing to properlytrainBubba. The testimony was that Bubba had no fonnal training but in fact there was ample testimony that the Davidsons themselves had trained Bubba. 4 RR 98:20-23;

5 RR 149:10-12, and 5 RR 152:6-7.

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

Bowman argues that the evidence established as a matter of law that Bubba had dangerous propensities abnormal to its class and that the Davidsons knew or should have known of such propensities. When the entire record is reviewed, just the contraty is actually established. That is, the only evidence in the record that possibly supp01is a finding argued by Bowman is that Bubba had nipped a family friend on the back of his leg on one occasion and that he barks and jumps at the fence when strangers approach the Davidsons' home. The ovetwhehning evidence presented at trial establishes that Bubba is a family pet that has never "bitten" anyone, nor have the Davidsons or any of their friends who testified at trial ever seen Bubba act in a dangerous or aggressive manner.

Perhaps the most telling summaty of the evidence is contained in the testimony of Bowman's expert on dog behavior, Dr. Lori Haug. She agreed that there was nothing in her review of this case that even warranted the Davidsons giving the warnings they did. Dr. Haug believes that had any such evidence existed, it would have come out by the time the case was tried, at which she testified live.

If the evidence in totality establishes any fact as a matter of law, it would be that Bubba did not possess any dangerous propensities abnmmal to its class of which the Davidsons knew or should have known. The Davidsons do not contest that Bubba did bite Bowman, but this incident was not anticipated nor foreseeable based on their knowledge as the owners ofBubba since he was a puppy.

The Davidsons' argument set forth below highlights the ovetwhehning amount of evidence which supports the jmy' s verdict, the judgment entered by the Comi and it supports the Comi's denial of Bowman's motion for new trial.

ARGUMENT

I. Bowman is not entitled to affirmative jury findings as a matter oflaw on the strict liability submission, and;

II. The negative answer to strict liability is supported by sufficient evidence.

Bowman seeks a finding as a matter oflaw that there was no evidence to suppmi the jury's fmding of no strict liability under the Comi' s instructions and submission in Question 1. For a fact to be conclusively established, that is, found to be one as a matter of law, the evidence must be such that reasonable tninds could not differ as to the conclusion to be

drawn from the evidence. See A & N Collision Ctr. ofAddison,Inc. vs. Town ofAddison, 310 S.W.3d 191, 193 (Tex.App.-Dallas, 2010, no pet.). Although Appellant cites numerous out of state cases, The Davidsons believe that the Marshall case and it's progeny accurately sets forth the law on strict liability as it relates to domestic animals.

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

Nancy Elizabeth Bowman v. Jerry Davidson and Diana Davidson, (Tex. Ct. App. 2015).

Nancy Elizabeth Bowman v. Jerry Davidson and Diana Davidson (Nancy Elizabeth Bowman v. Jerry Davidson and Diana Davidson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

An Collision Center of Addison, Inc. v. Town of Addison
310 S.W.3d 191 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2010)