Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourth District, San Antonio
the County Court at Law No. 10, Bexar County, Texas Trial
Court No. 2015CV00935 Honorable David J. Rodriguez, Judge
Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice, Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
Marialyn Barnard, Justice
appeal arises from an automobile accident. After a jury
trial, the trial court rendered a take-nothing judgment in
favor of appellee Pizza Venture of San Antonio, LLC d/b/a
Papa John's Pizza ("Pizza
Venture"). On appeal, appellant Carlos Antonio
Raymond raises several issues challenging the take-nothing
judgment in favor of Pizza Venture. We affirm the trial
detailed rendition of the facts is unnecessary to our
disposition of the appeal. Accordingly, we provide only a
brief factual and procedural background for context.
Taurus driven by Martin Joseph Roy rear-ended a Hummer driven
by Raymond. At the time of the collision, Roy was on his way
to his job as a delivery driver for a local Papa John's
Pizza owned by Pizza Venture. Raymond sued Roy and Pizza
Venture, claiming Roy was in the course and scope of his
employment at the time of the collision.
trial, Raymond introduced evidence that at the time of the
collision, Roy was wearing a Papa John's shirt and cap.
Raymond testified that at the time of the accident, Roy
repeatedly stated he was running late for work. Pizza Venture
introduced evidence showing Roy had not yet
"clocked-in" for work at the time of the accident.
the testimony was concluded, the matter was submitted to the
jury. The jury found Roy negligent, but found he was not in
the course and scope of his employment at the time of the
collision. The jury declined to award Raymond any damages for
physical pain, mental anguish, or medical expenses. It also
declined to award any damages for repairs to Raymond's
vehicle. Based on the jury's verdict, the trial court
rendered a take-nothing judgment in favor of Pizza Venture.
As to Roy, the trial court rendered a judgment in favor of
Raymond, awarding him $2, 232.13 - the amount of the
uncontested property damage. Thereafter, Raymond perfected
appeal, Raymond, who is pro se, sets out four issues in his
brief. Raymond first complains about the trial court's
failure to provide the jury with a "missing evidence
inference charge, " seemingly arguing he was entitled to
such an instruction based on Pizza Venture's alleged
failure to call certain witnesses or introduce certain
evidence. Raymond next contends Pizza Venture should have
introduced evidence of insurance coverage for its drivers,
and because it did not, the trial court erred "in
denying relief to correct a fault." This issue seems to
be related to the first issue. Raymond then asserts he was
denied his procedural due process rights, but the argument
under that issue relates back to allegedly missing evidence,
specifically certain photographs, and the trial court's
failure to instruct the jury that the failure of Pizza
Venture to produce the photographs required the jury to
presume they would have been unfavorable to Pizza Venture.
Finally, he contends he was improperly denied his right to
recover damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Again,
however, his argument does not comport with his stated issue.
Within the argument, he seems to argue the trial court
rendered judgment contrary to the jury's verdict based on
a motion to enter judgment filed by Pizza Venture.
we substantively address any of Raymond's issues, we must
first determine whether he has presented or preserved
anything for our review. In its brief, Pizza Venture contends
Raymond has waived his issues because: (1) he has failed to
sufficiently brief them; and (2) he failed to preserve any of
the issues raised here by proper request or objection in the
trial court. We agree.
- Inadequate Briefing
Raymond filed his original appellant's brief, this court
rendered an order striking his brief. In our order, we noted
Raymond's brief failed to contain any citations to the
appellate record or authorities, failed to present legal
arguments, and failed to include a certificate of compliance.
See Tex. R. App. P. 9.4(i)(3) (requiring
computer-generated documents subject to word limits to
include certificate stating number of words in document);
id. R. 38.1(i) (requiring appellant's brief to
contain clear and concise argument with appropriate citations
to record and authorities). Accordingly, we struck
Raymond's brief and ordered him to file an amended brief
correcting the violations set out in the order. After the
amended brief was filed, we rendered another ...