Legal Opinion · Dissent

E-Z Mart Stores, Inc. v. Havner

Texas Court of Appeals, 6th District (Texarkana)

Decided June 9, 1992No. 06-89-09797-CVPublished

1DissentGrant, Justice

I dissent. The evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s verdict on proximate cause. Cause in fact was established by sufficient circumstantial evidence and sufficient expert testimony, and foreseeability was not in issue. The majority opinion failed to apply the proper standards in three respects: (1) the proper standard concerning inferences, (2) the proper standard concerning expert witnesses, and (3) the proper standard in considering all of the evidence.

THE PROPER STANDARD CONCERNING INFERENCES

When there are possible conflicting inferences and conclusions, it is the function of the…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Havner v. E-Z Mart Stores, Inc.Texas Supreme Court · 1992
  2. Missouri Pacific Railroad v. American StatesmanTexas Supreme Court · 1977
  3. Cook Consultants, Inc. v. Larson, Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas)1985
  4. Bock v. Fellman Dry Goods Co.Texas Commission of Appeals · 1919
  5. Louder v. De LeonTexas Supreme Court · 1988

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API