Escamilla v. Garcia

Appellant’s complaints are that there is no evidence or, in the alternative, insufficient evidence to support the jury finding that appellant was guilty of negligence proximately causing the accident in question.

Under appellant’s “no evidence” point, the majority correctly considers only the evidence, and the inferences reasonably drawn therefrom which, when viewed in the light most favorable to support the findings, support the verdict.

The testimony of Solis was merely that when appellant cried out to warn him of the impending collision and started moving away from the side of the car which…