Patrick W. Heath v. Faye Dudley D/B/A Dudley Properties D/B/A Woodside Apartments ( 1995 )

Heath v. Dudley

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-94-069-CV

     PATRICK W. HEATH,

                                                                                              Appellant

     v.

     FAYE DUDLEY D/B/A DUDLEY PROPERTIES

     D/B/A WOODSIDE APARTMENTS,

                                                                                              Appellee

From the 14th District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court # 90-4319-A

O P I N I O N

      This is an appeal by Appellant Heath (plaintiff-tenant) from a take-nothing judgment in his suit for damages against Appellee Dudley (defendant-landlord), arising from an apartment fire after Heath's electricity had been disconnected.

      On December 5, 1989, prior to moving into an apartment owned by Dudley, Heath contacted TU Electric to transfer the electricity from Dudley's name to his name. The transfer was never made and TU Electric continued to send bills for Heath's apartment to Dudley. On December 14, 1989, upon receipt of a bill for Heath's apartment, Dudley contacted TU Electric to have the account removed from her name. On the afternoon of December 14, 1989, Heath came home from work and found that his electricity was cut off. He contacted TU Electric who told him action would be taken as soon as possible to restore electricity to his apartment. Heath then went out to supper with friends. Upon returning home at 1:30 A.M. on December 15, Heath found that the power had not been restored. He called TU Electric several times to complain. TU Electric's agents came to the apartment about 6:45 P.M. on December 14, and again at 4:00 A.M. on December 15, but did not find anyone at home or gain access to the meter because it was behind a fence.

      Heath and a companion lit candles and started a fire in the fireplace, went to sleep about 2:00 or 2:30 A.M. on December 15, and were awakened by the noise of the apartment burning about 5:30 A.M.

      The smoke detector which was powered by electricity did not sound. Heath suffered physical injuries from burns, lost most of his belonging, was hospitalized five days and was off work for two months.

      Dudley filed this suit against Dudley and TU Electric asserting claims for negligence, breach of contract, breach of warranty, violations of the Texas Property Code and Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Heath settled his claim against TU Electric for $20,000 and dismissed it from the case.

      Heath contended TU Electric cut off the electricity and did not reconnect it; and that the fire was caused by Heath lighting the candles and the fire in the fireplace, and then going to sleep.

      Trial was to a jury which answered questions submitted as follows:

(1)What percentage, if any, of the negligence, if any, that you find proximately caused the occurrence in question, do you find should be attributed to each of the following, if any?

(a) Heath?Answer: "0%"

(b) Dudley?Answer: "0%"

(c) TU Electric?Answer: "0%"

(2)Conditioned to answer to (1), other than 0% and not answered, (3) did the defendant knowingly engage in any false, misleading or deceptive act or practice that was a producing cause of damage to plaintiff?

(a)Knowingly?Answer: "No"

(b)False, misleading or deceptive act or practice?

                                                             Answer: "No"

(c)Producing cause?Answer: "No"

(4)Did the defendant knowingly breach an expressed or implied warranty with respect to the occurrence in question?

(a)Expressed warranty?Answer: "No"

(b)Implied warranty?Answer: "No"

(c)Knowingly?Answer: "No"

(5)Did the defendant fail to perform all of its obligations under the contract, if any, with the plaintiff?Answer: "No"

(6) & (7) Damage issues were conditionally submitted and were not answered.

      The trial court rendered judgment that Heath take nothing and thereafter denied his motion for a new trial. Appellant Heath appeals on five points which he denominates as A, B, C, D, and E.

      Point A: "The trial court erred in refusing to grant plaintiff's motion for a trial amendment on negligence per se where the issue had been previously asserted and so presented no prejudice to defendant."

      Heath's third amended petition asserted that Dudley was negligent in:

"preventing TU Electric from restoring electrical service to [Heath's] apartment [by] failure to provide reasonable access to the meter and violation of the Texas Utilities Electric Company Tariff then in effect and approved by the Texas Public Utilities Commission."

(Emphasis added).

      On the third day of the trial, Heath filed a motion for trial amendment of pleadings to conform with issues tried without objection pursuant to Rule 67, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, and requested to add to the above "that such a negligence was per se."

      Heath asserted at trial, and now, that the amendment was not necessary to fairly plead the cause of action, but merely served to clarify the pleadings by adding "per se."

      The requested amendment was based on Dudley's alleged violations of a public tariff agreement between TU Electric and the State of Texas. The tariff was admitted into evidence over the objection of Dudley.

      The tariff required property owners make meters accessible to the electric company. Heath offered no evidence to show that the facts underlying his claim for negligence per se were not known to him before trial. The trial court denied leave to amend. Heath contends that Rule 67, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, gives him the right to amend and add "per se" to the negligence asserted.

      Whether to permit a trial amendment is a matter addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and an order denying leave to amend will not be disturbed absent a clear showing of abuse of discretion. Vermillion v. Haynes, 215 S.W.2d 605, 609 (Tex. 1948). The burden of showing that the trial court erred in refusing to permit a trial amendment rests on the party contending error. Hardin v. Hardin, 597 S.W.2d 347, 350 (Tex. 1980).

      Rule 67 permits a trial amendment when issues not raised by the pleadings are tried by express or implied consent of the parties. Here, the issue of negligence per se was not tried by consent. The statute allegedly violated was a public utilities tariff. Dudley's counsel objected twice to the introduction of the tariff into evidence. The objections were overruled and the exhibit was admitted.

      Moreover, trial by consent does not apply where the evidence on the non-pleaded matter is relevant to issues that were pleaded, such that it would not be calculated to elicit an objection. Austin Teachers FCU v. First City Bank, 825 S.W.2d 795, 800 (Tex. App.—Austin 1992). Heath plead that Dudley's alleged violation of the tariff constituted negligence. Thus any evidence concerning Dudley's knowledge and compliance with the tariff was applicable to Heath's negligence claim and Dudley would not be required to object.

      Heath has not shown that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the trial amendment. The new matter was known to Heath well before trial. In such situation the court does not abuse its discretion in refusing to allow the amendment. Trailways Inc. v. Clark, 794 S.W.2d 479, 492 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1990, writ denied); Missouri Pacific Ry. v. Buenrostro, 853 S.W.2d 66, 70, 71 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1993, writ denied).

      Point A is overruled.

      Point B: "The trial court erred in refusing to submit plaintiff's First Amended Proposed Jury Instruction No. 2, concerning negligence per se."

      Heath contends that even without his requested trial amendment that he plead negligence per se. He requested the following jury instruction:

"Negligence also means enclosing, making inaccessible, or by making accessible only by means of a ladder, the electric meter to the apartment in question."

The trial court denied same. Health alleged Dudley was guilty of negligence in "preventing TU Electric from restoring electric service to apartment 23, including failure to provide reasonable access to the meter, and in violation of Texas Utilities Electric Company Tariff then in effect and approved by the Texas Public Utilities Commission. (Emphasis added).

      The tariff states (in pertinent part) that it is the duty of the customer to provide space for the meter, and that meters are not to be installed in any location accessible only by means of a ladder. The tariff further provides that the company "assists in determining the meter location and may waive certain of these requirements for good cause."

      Negligence per se is the unexcused violation of a legislative enactment or an administrative regulation which is adopted by the court as defining the standard of conduct of a reasonable person. Missouri Pacific Ry. v. American Statesman, 552 S.W.2d 99, 103 (Tex. 1977).

      Heath argues that the tariff is an administrative regulation which should have been adopted by the trial court as defining the conduct of a reasonable person. At trial Heath had the burden of proof to convince the court that the purpose of the tariff was to afford protection to a class of persons to which he belonged and that it was designed to protect against the hazard or injury involved in this case. Carter v. Williams Somerville & Son, 584 S.W.2d 274, 278 (Tex. 1979).

      Heath presented no evidence that the tariff (1) was legislatively enacted; (2) created a standard of conduct different from ordinary care; (3) was designed to protect a class of persons to which he belonged; and (4) or was designed to prevent injuries or hazards of the type involved in this case.

      Instead Heath merely offered the tariff as an exhibit, and then questioned Dudley regarding the meter provisions.

      The availability of the negligence per se rule does not mean that it is applied indiscriminately to the purported violation of every administrative regulation. The power of adopting or rejecting a proposed standard of conduct rests exclusively within the discretion of the trial court. Rudes v. Gottochalk, 324 S.W.2d 201, 205 (Tex. 1959).

      A reading of the tariff discloses that it does not create a standard of care for the customers of the utility. It relates to the utility's duty to provide electricity to the public at reasonable rates, and does not create some standard of care on the part of the customers for independent tort actions brought by third parties. Heath offered no evidence that the tariff applied to Dudley in any way, nor did he establish that the tariff rises to the status of legally binding laws. Continental Oil Co. v. Simpson, 604 S.W.2d 530 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1980, n.r.e.); Wilson v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 753 S.W.2d 442 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1988, writ denied).

      Moreover, the evidence was that TU Electric had a key to the gate, never asked Dudley to move the meter, and liked the fence because it kept people from turning the meter around and using electricity for free. The requirement that the meter not be fenced in, or that TU Electric not have to use a ladder, was waived.

      Point B is overruled.

      Point C: "The trial court abused its discretion in refusing to submit plaintiff's first amended proposed Jury Issues 14-18 because ample evidence existed to warrant their submission."

      The trial court refused to submit Heath's following requested issues:

No. 14.Did Dudley or any of her agents interrupt or cause interruption of electrical service to Heath?

No. 15.Did Dudley fail to make a diligent effort to repair or remedy a condition in apartment 23 that materially affected the physical health or safety of an ordinary tenant?

No. 16.Did Dudley fail to provide a smoke detector in good working order to Heath on December 14-15, 1989?

No. 17.Were the failures of Dudley (above) a producing cause of damages to Heath?

No. 18.(The damage issue).

      Heath's live pleadings contained nine specific allegations of negligence against Dudley. The factual basis of these allegations was Dudley's alleged conduct in "causing the electricity to be shut off to Heath's apartment," and in "failing to provide a smoke detector at the time of the fire."

      These exact same facts constituted the basis for Heath's claim for requested Questions 14- 18. These questions were based on the same factual allegations underlying Heath's other causes of action, and were included in the broad form questions submitted to the jury. The trial court did not err in refusing to submit the requested questions because they were simply different versions or shades of the questions already submitted.

      The trial court has wide discretion in determining the proper questions and instructions to be submitted to the jury. Mobil Chem. Co. v. Bell, 517 S.W.2d 245 (Tex. 1975). A judgment should not be reversed because of the failure to submit other and various phases or different shades of the same questions. Tex. R. Civ. P. 278; City of San Antonio v. Rodriguez, 856 S.W.2d 552. 558 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1993, writ denied); Sheldon Pollack Cp. v. Falcon Industries, 794 S.W.2d 380, 383 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1990, writ denied).

      The questions the trial court submitted adequately addressed the factual allegations made by Heath and gave the jury the opportunity to consider the conduct complained of and to award damages it deemed proper.

      Point C is overruled.

      Point D: "The trial court erred in refusing to admit Plaintiff's Exhibit 2 and related testimony into evidence concerning the original contract between the parties and its destruction by defendant."

      The trial court refused to admit Heath's Exhibit 2, a form lease such as the original lease signed by both parties. The evidence was that Exhibit 2 was not the agreement of the parties. Exhibit 2 was not signed by Heath. Heath offered no evidence that the lease was lost or destroyed. There was evidence that the apartments were foreclosed on after this case was filed and that Dudley's records were given to the forecloser, "Fannie Mae." Heath offered no evidence that the agreement was destroyed or was not obtainable from "Fannie Mae" through judicial process. Having failed to establish that the original was lost or destroyed, Heath was bound by the best evidence rule, and Exhibit 2 was not admissible. Arrechea v. Arrechea, 609 S.W.2d 852, 855 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1980, n.r.e.). Heath offered no evidence that he attempted to subpoena the document from "Fannie Mae." Thus, Heath did not satisfy his burden to account for non production of the original, and the trial court correctly refused to admit Exhibit 2.

      Point D is overruled.

      Point E: "The trial court abused its discretion in denying plaintiff's motion for a new trial where the findings of fact were clearly against the overwhelming weight of the evidence."

      Heath contends the evidence is overwhelming that a breach of contract occurred; and overwhelming that Heath's electricity was disconnected as a direct result of Dudley's request to TU Electric.

      We must examine the entire record and set aside the jury's verdict only if it is so contrary to the overwhelming weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be clearly wrong and manifestly unjust. Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175, 176 (Tex. 1986).

      Heath cannot demonstrate that the jury's failure to find a breach of contract is overwhelmingly against the great weight of the evidence when the alleged contract itself was neither introduced at trial nor preserved for review on appeal.

      We think the great weight and preponderance of the evidence supports the jury's verdict and shows that it was TU Electric, and not Dudley, who disconnected the utilities. We think the evidence shows that Dudley requested the electric service be transferred to Heath's name. The witness Graves, TU Electric's troubleshooter who came to the apartment on December 14 and 15 to reconnect the electricity, identified the TU Electric work order as reciting, "Cut in Error." The record contains much evidence that TU Electric, and not Dudley, was at fault. We hold that the verdict is not against the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence.

      Point E is overruled. The judgment is affirmed.

                                                                               FRANK G. McDONALD

                                                                               Chief Justice (retired)

Before Chief Justice Thomas,

      Justice Cummings, and

      Chief Justice McDonald (Retired)

Affirmed

Opinion delivered and filed May 24, 1995

Do not publish