Filed: Jan. 10, 2020
Latest Update: Jan. 10, 2020
Summary: PER CURIAM . * In this diversity case stemming from an auto accident, the plaintiff appeals a take-nothing judgment based on the jury's answer of "no" to the question, "Did the negligence, if any, of Noah Zavolas proximately cause the occurrence in question " The magistrate judge, who tried the case by consent, denied plaintiff's motion for new trial, succinctly explaining that "under Texas law, being the `cause' of an accident does not equate with being negligent." Thus, despite that the de
Summary: PER CURIAM . * In this diversity case stemming from an auto accident, the plaintiff appeals a take-nothing judgment based on the jury's answer of "no" to the question, "Did the negligence, if any, of Noah Zavolas proximately cause the occurrence in question " The magistrate judge, who tried the case by consent, denied plaintiff's motion for new trial, succinctly explaining that "under Texas law, being the `cause' of an accident does not equate with being negligent." Thus, despite that the def..
More
PER CURIAM.*
In this diversity case stemming from an auto accident, the plaintiff appeals a take-nothing judgment based on the jury's answer of "no" to the question, "Did the negligence, if any, of Noah Zavolas proximately cause the occurrence in question?" The magistrate judge, who tried the case by consent, denied plaintiff's motion for new trial, succinctly explaining that "under Texas law, being the `cause' of an accident does not equate with being negligent." Thus, despite that the defendant admitted to being the cause for having crossed the center line on a curve on a slippery road, there was sufficient evi-dence for the jury to find no negligence.
The judgment is AFFIRMED, essentially for the reasons given by the magistrate judge.
