Deluxe Barber Sch., LLC v. Nwakor, 609 S.W.3d 282, 293 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2020, pet. denied); see also GB Tubulars, Inc. v. Union Gas Operating Co., 527 S.W.3d 563, 568 (Tex. App.- Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, pet. denied) ("Where, as here, the parties have not objected at trial to the substance of the law set forth in the jury charge, we review sufficiency of the evidence in light of legal standards contained in the unobjected-to charge.").
Osterberg v. Peca, 12 S.W.3d 31, 55 (Tex. 2000); Deluxe Barber Sch., LLC v. Nwakor, 609 S.W.3d 282, 293 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2020, pet. denied); see also GB Tubulars, Inc. v. Union Gas Operating Co., 527 S.W.3d 563, 568 (Tex. App.- Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, pet. denied) ("Where, as here, the parties have not objected at trial to the substance of the law set forth in the jury charge, we review sufficiency of the evidence in light of legal standards contained in the unobjected-to charge.").
Indeed, Texas intermediate courts uniformly hold that claims premised on such defects must comport with Armstrong 's evidentiary standards, regardless of whether those claims are rooted in tort law, contract law, or the DTPA. See e.g., Hill v. Sonic Momentum JVP, LP , 2021 WL 3501540, at *4 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2021) (breach of contract, breach of warranty, and the DTPA); GB Tubulars, Inc. v. Union Gas Operating Co. , 527 S.W.3d 563, 571–72 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2017) (same, as well as negligent misrepresentation). More broadly, Texas law has long required expert testimony for issues of causation that go beyond "general experience and common sense."
Although we reverse and remand for a new trial on liability and damages because of the lack of sufficient evidence to support the damages awarded, we nevertheless address Landlord's issues concerning the legal sufficiency of the evidence to support the trial court's liability findings because legal sufficiency is a potential reverse and render issue. See Horrocks v. Tex. Dep't of Transp., 852 S.W.2d 498, 499 (Tex. 1993); GB Tubulars, Inc. v. Union Gas Operating Co., 527 S.W.3d 563, 567 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, pet. denied). We need not address Landlord's issues concerning the factual sufficiency of the evidence to support the trial court's liability findings.
We review a trial court's decision to admit or exclude evidence for an abuse of discretion. Volkswagen of Am., Inc. v. Ramirez , 159 S.W.3d 897, 918 (Tex. 2004) ; GB Tubulars, Inc. v. Union Gas Operating Co. , 527 S.W.3d 563, 571 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, pet. denied). A trial court abuses its discretion when it acts arbitrarily or unreasonably, or without reference to any guiding principles.
We begin with Jimenez's second issue because, if successful, it would provide Jimenez with the greatest relief. See GB Tubulars, Inc. v. Union Gas Operating Co., 527 S.W.3d 563, 567 (Tex. App.- Houston [14th Dist] 2017, pet. denied).
002; In re Mobile Mini, Inc., 596 S.W.3d 781, 787 n.2 (Tex. 2020) (orig. proceeding); GB Tubulars, Inc. v. Union Gas Operating Co., 527 S.W.3d 563, 576 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, pet. denied). We overrule appellants' fifth and eleventh issues.
Where, as here, the parties have not objected at trial to the substance of the law set forth in the jury question, we review Argueta's sufficiency challenges in light of the legal standards contained in the charge. See, e.g., GB Tubulars, Inc. v. Union Gas Operating Co., 527 S.W.3d 563, 568 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, pet. denied). We consider each challenge separately.
Accordingly, this instruction provides the legal framework for analyzing the sufficiency of the evidence regarding the existence of a fiduciary relationship in this case. SeeOsterberg , 12 S.W.3d at 55 ; see alsoGB Tubulars, Inc. v. Union Gas Operating Co. , 527 S.W.3d 563, 568 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, pet. denied) ("Where, as here, the parties have not objected at trial to the substance of the law set forth in the jury charge, we review sufficiency of the evidence in light of legal standards contained in the unobjected-to charge."). Nwakor presented evidence of several factors that together support the jury's conclusion that Nwakor and Mbaka were in an informal fiduciary relationship as defined by the charge, i.e., one that arose "from a moral, social, domestic or purely personal relationship of trust and confidence."
"Cause in fact means that the defendant's conduct was a substantial factor in bringing about the injury which would not otherwise have occurred." Peeler v. Hughes & Luce, 909 S.W.2d 494, 498 (Tex. 1995); cf. GB Tubulars, Inc. v. Union Gas Operating Co., 527 S.W.3d 563, 571 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, pet. denied) (stating in the context of an express warranty claim that the claim requires proof of producing cause, defined as "a cause that was a substantial factor in [the] bringing about of an occurrence, and without which the occurrence would not have occurred"). The only evidence addressing causation came from Lewis's testimony.