From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cain v. Bain

Supreme Court of Texas
Jun 4, 1986
709 S.W.2d 175 (Tex. 1986)

Summary

holding factual sufficiency argument must establish verdict was clearly wrong and manifestly unjust

Summary of this case from Jackson v. Gould

Opinion

No. C-4764.

February 12, 1986. Rehearing Denied June 4, 1986.

Appeal from the 215th District Court, Harris County, Charles L. Price, J.

Ross, Banks, May, Cron Cavin by John A. Cavin, Houston, for petitioners.

Ross, Banks, May, Cron Cavin, Gordon A. Holloway, and N. Carlene Rhodes, Houston, for respondents.


James and Karen Bain purchased a 20-year-old house in 1976 from George and Carroll Banks. The real estate agent for the transaction was an employee of James Cain Company. In 1978, the Bains tried to sell their house but were unable to find a buyer because of a foundation defect. They sued James Cain Company for violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The trial court granted Cain's Motion for Directed Verdict and rendered a take nothing judgment against the Bains. In an unpublished opinion, the court of appeals reversed the trial court's judgment. Tex.R.Civ.P. 452.

The trial court submitted Issue No. 7 asking the jury:

Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence that on or before October 13, 1977 the Plaintiffs James Lee Bain and wife Karen Sue Bain either had knowledge of such substantial foundation structural defect, or were on notice of such facts as would cause a reasonable, prudent person to make inquiry which could lead to the discovery of such defect by the exercise of reasonable diligence?

Answer: "We do" or "We do not"

Answer: We do

The evidence revealed that when the Bains moved into the house they noticed a bulge under one window, a crack in the kitchen wall, and a sticking door. Within six or seven months after occupying the house, they noticed a foundation crack near the patio. Karen Bain testified that during the spring or summer of 1977 she was told there might be a slab problem with the house.

The Bains presented some evidence to the contrary. They consulted with a foundation expert in April 1978, who informed them that there was not a substantial foundation defect. Also, they argue the flaws in the house could have been indicative of problems other than a foundation defect, such as ordinary subsidence problems common to the Houston area, or the effects of age, dampness and weathering on a 20-year-old house.

On appeal, the Bains asserted that the jury finding that they were on constructive notice of the foundation defect was against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence. The court of appeals reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the cause, holding the flaws and evidence of defects in the house "do not point unerringly to a substantial foundation defect." This is not the correct standard of review for a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence.

When reviewing a jury verdict to determine the factual sufficiency of the evidence, the court of appeals must consider and weigh all the evidence, and should set aside the verdict only if it is so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence as to be clearly wrong and unjust. Dyson v. Olin Corp., 692 S.W.2d 456, 457 (Tex. 1985); In Re King's Estate, 150 Tex. 662, 664-65, 244 S.W.2d 660, 661 (1951).

The court of appeals imposed a different standard — that the evidence supporting the jury's finding must point "unerringly" to the conclusion found by the jury. The court also held the evidence was "much too slight and indefinite" to support the jury verdict. The jury's task is to decide a fact issue based on the preponderance of the evidence. We hold that the court of appeals has decided this case under an inappropriate standard of law. There is some evidence to support the jury verdict. Therefore, pursuant to Rule 483, we grant Cain's application for writ of error and, without hearing oral argument, reverse the judgment of the court of appeals on the insufficiency of evidence point and remand the cause to that court to consider the insufficiency points of error under the proper test. We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals in all other respects.


Summaries of

Cain v. Bain

Supreme Court of Texas
Jun 4, 1986
709 S.W.2d 175 (Tex. 1986)

holding factual sufficiency argument must establish verdict was clearly wrong and manifestly unjust

Summary of this case from Jackson v. Gould

holding that we may not reverse verdict for factual insufficiency unless the evidence that supports the finding "is so weak as to be clearly wrong and manifestly unjust"

Summary of this case from Byrd v. Mahrou

holding that in a factual sufficiency challenge, "the court of appeals must consider and weigh all the evidence, and should set aside the verdict only if it is so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence as to be clearly wrong and unjust"

Summary of this case from McKeithan v. Condit

holding that, in factual-sufficiency determination, court should set aside the finding only if the evidence supporting the finding is so weak as to be clearly wrong and manifestly unjust

Summary of this case from Fish v. Hodges

noting the correct standard of review for challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence requires a court of appeals to consider and weigh all the evidence and to set the verdict aside "only if it is so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence as to be clearly wrong and unjust"

Summary of this case from Herrera v. Mata

describing factual sufficiency review

Summary of this case from Hoover v. Guillory

describing factual-sufficiency review

Summary of this case from T. E. v. Tex. Dep't of Family & Protective Servs.

describing standard for reviewing factual sufficiency challenges

Summary of this case from Goepp v. Comerica Bank

explaining that when party challenges factual sufficiency of adverse finding on issue on which it did not have burden of proof, it must demonstrate that finding is so contrary to overwhelming weight of evidence as to be clearly wrong and manifestly unjust

Summary of this case from Permit Partners v. Sauer

describing factual sufficiency review

Summary of this case from M. A. R. G. v. Tex. Dep't of Family & Protective Servs.

describing factual sufficiency standard of review

Summary of this case from Steen v. Tex. Mut. Ins. Co.

explaining a reviewing court should only set aside a lower court's finding if it is "so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence as to be clearly wrong and unjust"

Summary of this case from In re D.L.S.W.

describing factual sufficiency standard of review

Summary of this case from Ramirez v. Ramirez

describing the factual sufficiency standard of review

Summary of this case from U.S. Concrete, Inc. v. Hegar

stating such with regard to jury findings

Summary of this case from Alwazzan v. Alwazzan

stating such with regard to jury findings

Summary of this case from Alwazzan v. Alwazzan

describing factual sufficiency standard of review

Summary of this case from Silicon Labs., Inc. v. Hegar

explaining that, when considering factual sufficiency challenge, reviewing court considers all of evidence and "should set aside the verdict only if it is so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence as to be clearly wrong and unjust"

Summary of this case from Castilleja v. Monterastelli

describing factual sufficiency standard of review

Summary of this case from Sarfo v. Comm'n for Lawyer Discipline

describing factual sufficiency standard of review

Summary of this case from AvenueOne Props., Inc. v. KP5 Ltd. P'ship

applying factual-sufficiency standard of review

Summary of this case from Ramirez v. Galvan

describing factual sufficiency standard of review

Summary of this case from Kramer v. Kastleman

describing factual sufficiency standard of review

Summary of this case from Am. Multi-Cinema, Inc. v. Hegar

describing factual sufficiency standard of review

Summary of this case from Am. Multi-Cinema, Inc. v. Hegar

outlining factual-sufficiency standard of review

Summary of this case from Key v. Richards
Case details for

Cain v. Bain

Case Details

Full title:James CAIN, d/b/a James Cain Company, et al., Petitioners, v. James Lee…

Court:Supreme Court of Texas

Date published: Jun 4, 1986

Citations

709 S.W.2d 175 (Tex. 1986)

Citing Cases

Horak v. Newman

When considering a factual sufficiency challenge, the reviewing court considers all of the evidence and…

Brown v. Taylor

In reviewing a factual-sufficiency challenge to a jury finding on an issue on which the appellant did not…