Case 4:15-cv-00764-ALM Document 135 Filed 04/26/17 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 3263
`
`United States District Court
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`SHERMAN DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 4:15-CV-764
`Judge Mazzant
`
`SHAWN MINSHALL, LISA VICTORIA
`MINSHALL, LAUREN VICTORIA
`MINSHALL
`
`v.
`
`HARTMAN EQUINE REPRODUCTION
`CENTER, P.A.
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
`
`
`
`Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Entry of Judgment (Dkt. #132). Having
`
`considered the motion and the pleadings, the Court finds that the motion should be denied.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`This civil action proceeded to a jury trial on February 27, 28 and on March 1, 2, 3, 6, and
`
`7, 2017. Plaintiffs alleged Defendant was liable for (1) violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade
`
`Practices Act; (2) negligent misrepresentation; (3) negligence; (4) fraud; (5) joint enterprise; (6)
`
`civil conspiracy; and (7) aiding and abetting after Otto, a foal Plaintiffs bred at Defendant
`
`veterinary clinic, contracted Hereditary Equine Regional Dermal Asthenia (“HERDA”), a genetic
`
`skin disease.
`
`The jury returned a verdict on March 7, 2017. The jury found that Plaintiffs proved by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence that Defendant’s negligence proximately caused Plaintiffs’
`
`damages (Dkt. #131, Question 7). The jury found no liability against Defendant as to Plaintiffs
`
`claims for violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, negligent misrepresentation,
`
`fraud, joint enterprise, civil conspiracy, and aiding and abetting (Dkt. #131). The parties dispute
`
`the measure of damages for Plaintiffs’ negligence claim and whether the Court should award
`
`

`

`Case 4:15-cv-00764-ALM Document 135 Filed 04/26/17 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 3264
`
`attorneys’ fees. The Court finds Plaintiffs are entitled to $3,000 in damages and are not entitled to
`
`an award of attorneys’ fees.
`
`Damages
`
`At the conclusion of the evidence, the Court submitted final instructions to the jury
`
`providing specific factors for the jury to consider when awarding damages for each specific cause
`
`of action (Dkt. #124). The Court instructed the jury that if it found Defendant negligent, in
`
`awarding damages it should consider “the difference, if any, in the market value of Otto and the
`
`market value Otto would have had if he had not been HERDA-affected.” (Dkt. #124 at p. 23). See
`
`Pasadena State Bank v. Isaac, 228 S.W.2d 127 (Tex. 1950) (holding that “the general rule for
`
`measuring damages to personal property is the difference in the market value immediately before
`
`and immediately after the injury to such property”); Texas Pattern Jury Charges: Negligence
`
`§ 31.3 (2016). For the other causes of action Plaintiffs alleged, the Court instructed the jury that
`
`it could consider additional factors in determining damages, such as the reasonable and necessary
`
`expenses related to foaling, raising, boarding, and training Otto in the past and future and Plaintiffs’
`
`lost profits (Dkt. #124 at p. 21-24). See Texas Pattern Jury Charges: Business §§ 115.9-10;
`
`115.20-21.
`
`As requested by the parties, the verdict form contained one question regarding
`
`compensatory damages (Dkt. #131, Question 14). The question instructed the jury to answer “what
`
`sum of money . . . would fairly and reasonably compensate Plaintiffs for their damages, if any, that
`
`were a producing or proximate cause of the occurrence in question” (Dkt. #131, Question 14). The
`
`jury found the following damages:
`
` $30,000 for the difference in value Otto would have had if he had not been HERDA-
`
`affected;
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 4:15-cv-00764-ALM Document 135 Filed 04/26/17 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 3265
`
` $28,408 for the reasonable and necessary expenses related to foaling, raising,
`
`boarding, and training Otto in the past;
`
` $75,000 for the reasonable and necessary expenses, in reasonable probability, the
`
`Plaintiffs will incur related to caring for Otto in the future;
`
` $30,000 for lost profits, in reasonable probability, Plaintiffs will sustain in the
`
`future.
`
`(Dkt. #131, Question 14). The jury thus found compensatory damages totaling $163,408. The
`
`jury further found that Defendant was ten percent responsible for Plaintiffs’ injury (Dkt. #131,
`
`Question 19).
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs argue that they are entitled to $16,340.80 in damages because the jury found
`
`Plaintiffs suffered damages of $163,408 (Dkt. #132 at p. 3). Plaintiffs argue that “notwithstanding
`
`the jury instruction on negligence, compensatory damages for economic losses proximately caused
`
`by a party’s negligence are available to the prevailing party as a matter of law in Texas.”
`
`(Dkt. #132 at p. 3). Defendant responds that pursuant to the Court’s instructions, the only
`
`recoverable damage for negligence was the difference in the market value of Otto, which the jury
`
`found was $30,000. Defendant states that Plaintiffs are only entitled to $3,000 because the jury
`
`found Defendant was ten percent responsible for Plaintiffs’ injury (Dkt. #133 at p. 2–3).
`
`
`
`The Court finds that Plaintiffs are entitled to $3,000 in damages. The general rule for
`
`measuring damages to personal property is the difference in the market value immediately before
`
`and immediately after the injury to such property. Pasadena State Bank v. Isaac, 228 S.W.2d 127
`
`(Tex. 1950); J & D Towing, LLC v. Am. Alternative Ins. Corp., 478 S.W.3d 649, 661 (Tex. 2016).
`
`Although economic damages are also available to a prevailing party in a negligence action, see
`
`Nobility Homes of Texas, Inc. v. Shivers, 557 S.W.2d 77, 83 (Tex. 1977), Plaintiffs did not object
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 4:15-cv-00764-ALM Document 135 Filed 04/26/17 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 3266
`
`to the Court’s instruction limiting negligence damages to the difference in the market value of
`
`Otto. The jury only found Defendant negligent and did not find Defendant liable under any other
`
`cause of action.
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs further argue that Defendant waived its right to object to any inconsistency in the
`
`jury instructions, which limited negligence damages to Otto’s fair market value, and the jury
`
`verdict, which did not limit the types of compensatory damages that the jury could award for each
`
`cause of action. However, “the Fifth Circuit has repeatedly held that a jury’s answers are not
`
`irreconcilably inconsistent when potentially inconsistent answers were in response to questions
`
`that the jury should not have answered.” Oyefodun v. City of New Orleans, No. CIV.A. 98-3283,
`
`2001 WL 775574, at *3 (E.D. La. July 9, 2001), aff'd, 54 F. App'x 793 (5th Cir. 2002) (citing Smith
`
`v. Tidewater Marine Towing, Inc., 927 F.2d 838, 840 (5th Cir.1991) (when jury found no
`
`negligence and no unseaworthiness, answers to damage interrogatories were unnecessary); White
`
`v. Grinfas, 809 F.2d 1157, 1161 (5th Cir.1987) (“If the district court has correctly found that the
`
`jury’s answer to a question was supposed to terminate further inquiry is clear and disposed of the
`
`legal issues, on review we must ignore the jury’s necessarily conflicting answers to any other
`
`questions”)). See also Robroy Indus. Inc. v. Schwalbach, 481 F. App'x 133, 137 (5th Cir. 2012)
`
`(“Where the jury has already answered a dispositive interrogatory, superfluous answers may be
`
`disregarded”); Carr v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 312 F.3d 667, 674 (5th Cir. 2002) (holding that a
`
`“district court does not abuse its discretion in reconciling verdicts containing answers to
`
`interrogatories that the jury was instructed not to answer, when it . . . disregards the superfluous
`
`answers in their entirety”).
`
`
`
`Here, the Court instructed the jury that the only recoverable damage for Defendant’s
`
`negligence was the difference in Otto’s market value. The jury only found Defendant negligent.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 4:15-cv-00764-ALM Document 135 Filed 04/26/17 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 3267
`
`Although the jury awarded additional compensatory damages, the Court will disregard the
`
`superfluous answers. The jury may have misunderstood the Court’s instructions or awarded
`
`additional damages for the fraud it found against Ed and Shona Dufurrena. See Willard v. The
`
`John Hayward, 577 F.2d 1009, 1011 (5th Cir.1978) (“Even a jury verdict inconsistent on its face
`
`is not inconsistent if it can be explained by assuming the jury reasonably misunderstood the
`
`instructions.”). Plaintiffs’ motion for entry of judgment seeking compensation for all
`
`compensatory damages is denied.
`
`Attorneys’ Fees
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs argue they are statutorily entitled to attorneys’ fees under Civil Practice and
`
`Remedies Code Section 38.001(6). Section 38.001(6) states that “a person may recover reasonable
`
`attorney’s fees from an individual or corporation, in addition to the amount of a valid claim and
`
`costs, if the claim is for . . . killed or injured stock . . .” Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann.
`
`§ 38.001(6).
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs’ complaint did not seek recovery of attorneys’ fees under Section 38.001(6).
`
`Further, the jury did not make any findings regarding whether Otto was “injured” for purposes of
`
`Section 38.001(6). Plaintiffs’ request for attorneys’ fees is denied.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Entry of Judgment (Dkt. #132) is
`
`hereby DENIED. The Court will enter a final judgment consistent with this Memorandum
`
`Opinion and Order.
`
`
`
`5
`
`