Opinion
No. 14-08-00080-CV
Memorandum Opinion filed August 11, 2009.
On Appeal from the 80th District Court Harris County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 2004-26657.
Panel consists of Justices ANDERSON, GUZMAN, and BOYCE.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In this motor vehicle accident case, appellant Gary Murchison challenges the directed verdict in favor of appellee Minh Quoc Pham. Because there is no evidence that Pham breached a duty to Murchison, we affirm.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On August 2, 2002, vehicles driven by Murchison and Pham collided in a restaurant parking lot. At trial more than five years later, Murchison did not appear, and witnesses relied on demonstrative exhibits to show the traffic pattern and the relative location of the Murchison and Pham vehicles.
Because these exhibits are not part of the record on appeal, our description of events necessarily is drawn solely from witness testimony.
According to Pham, the restaurant parking lot was completely full, and as he circled the lot looking for a parking space, he approached a "T" intersection. A parked car to Pham's right blocked one row, and Pham began "inching" his car forward at "probably" less than one mile per hour to look past the obstructing vehicle. Pham testified, "As I turned [right] and before I know it, there's another car came in, hit me at the corner of [the] driver's side, tip of the corner." Pham also agreed that his vehicle hit the door of Murchison's vehicle on the driver's side. According to Pham, the accident happened in a "split second," and although he looked in all directions, he did not see Murchison's vehicle before the accident. He identified nothing that he or Murchison did wrong.
Murchison's wife, Michelle Walsh, testified that Murchison was driving at about five miles per hour at the time of the accident. According to Walsh, Pham "was inching out and he hit us right in the passenger's [sic] door before we had a chance to slow down, speed up, next thing we know the accident happened." She did not know if Murchison saw Pham before the accident. She further testified that Murchison was injured and incurred $17,908 in medical bills, but the record contains no evidence identifying Murchison's injury or its cause. Walsh also estimated that Murchison's vehicle sustained $3,500 in damage.
At the close of Murchison's evidence, Pham moved for a directed verdict on the grounds that there was no evidence of negligence, breach of duty, or causation. The trial court granted the motion and denied Murchison's subsequent motion for new trial. This appeal timely ensued.
II. ISSUE PRESENTED
In his sole appellate issue, Murchison contends the trial court erred in granting Pham's motion for instructed verdict.
III. STANDARD OF REVIEW
In reviewing an instructed verdict, we determine whether there is more than a scintilla of probative evidence to raise a fact issue on the material questions presented. Coastal Transp. Co. v. Crown Cent. Petroleum Corp., 136 S.W.3d 227, 233 (Tex. 2004); Szczepanik v. First S. Trust Co., 883 S.W.2d 648, 649 (Tex. 1994) (per curiam). We consider all of the evidence in a light most favorable to the party against whom the verdict was instructed and give the losing party the benefit of all reasonable inferences created by the evidence. Coastal Transp., 136 S.W.3d at 234. If there is any conflicting evidence of probative value on any theory of recovery, an instructed verdict is improper and the case must be reversed and remanded for jury determination of that issue. Szczepanik, 883 S.W.2d at 649.
IV. ANALYSIS
To prevail on a negligence claim, a plaintiff must prove the existence of a legal duty, a breach of that duty, and damages proximately caused by the breach. D. Houston, Inc. v. Love, 92 S.W.3d 450, 454 (Tex. 2002). Here, Murchison presented less than a scintilla of evidence that Pham breached a duty to Murchison. To the contrary, the evidence is uncontroverted that a car was parked in a way that impaired Pham's view, and the collision occurred suddenly while Pham was "inching" forward to see beyond this obstruction. There is no evidence that either driver could have seen the other in time to avoid an accident, even given the low speed at which Walsh admits Pham was traveling.
On this record, any inference that Pham breached a duty to Murchison would be based solely on the fact that a collision occurred. The occurrence of a motor vehicle accident is not itself, however, evidence of negligence. Smith v. Cent. Freight Lines, Inc., 774 S.W.2d 411, 412 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1989, writ denied). We therefore overrule Murchison's sole issue on appeal.
V. CONCLUSION
Because Murchison failed to present legally sufficient evidence of negligence, we affirm the trial court's judgment.