Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Vanessa Loraine Chapman sued Maya Management Group LLC, doing business as El Rio Grande Latin Market, for negligence and premises liability. She alleged that she slipped on a puddle of liquid in the freezer aisle of Maya’s store and suffered injuries.
Maya was properly served but did not answer. The trial court entered a no-answer default judgment awarding Chapman $239,120.22, including $225,981.36 in damages, $12,155.22 in prejudgment interest, and $983.64 in litigation costs. Chapman supported her damages request with healthcare-provider affidavits describing charges, but the referenced medical records were not attached. Maya brought a restricted appeal.
The Court’s Holding
The Second Court of Appeals held that Maya satisfied the requirements for a restricted appeal and that error appeared on the face of the record. Although Maya’s failure to answer admitted the pleaded facts establishing liability, it did not admit that Chapman’s alleged injuries and unliquidated damages were caused by the slip and fall.
The healthcare-provider affidavits showed only that Chapman incurred medical expenses; they did not establish that the treated conditions resulted from the fall. They also did not establish pain and suffering, mental anguish, or physical impairment attributable to the incident. The court therefore affirmed the default judgment as to Maya’s liability but reversed the unliquidated-damages portion and remanded for a new trial limited to whether the fall caused Chapman’s damages and, if so, the amount of those damages.
Key Takeaways
- A no-answer default admits pleaded facts establishing liability but does not admit the amount or causation of unliquidated damages.
- Affidavits establishing the existence and reasonableness of medical charges do not, without more, prove that the underlying event caused the treated conditions.
- When liability is established by default but damages evidence is legally insufficient, the court may preserve the liability determination and remand only the causation and damages issues.
Why It Matters
The opinion underscores that plaintiffs seeking unliquidated damages after a no-answer default must still present competent evidence connecting the incident to each category of claimed loss. Proof that medical services were provided and charges incurred does not itself establish that the defendant’s admitted conduct caused those expenses.
For defendants pursuing restricted appeals, legally insufficient damages evidence can constitute error apparent on the face of the record even when the default conclusively establishes liability.