## Facts

- G.T. Management, Inc. managed and operated a Dallas dance club that used bouncers to control patrons and remove perceived troublemakers.
- Michael Gonzalez attended the club and, around 1:00 a.m., a bouncer confronted him about allegedly throwing a bottle; Gonzalez denied it.
- Gonzalez testified that multiple bouncers restrained him, struck him in the face with flashlights, and threw him down the entrance steps, causing injury and hospitalization.
- The club manager testified Gonzalez swung at him, and that Gonzalez and a bouncer fell into a wall and down the steps; he denied any flashlight blows or that bouncers threw Gonzalez.
- Gonzalez sued the club’s owner individually and the management company, asserting negligence-based claims and seeking damages for personal injuries.
- The fact-finder found G.T. Management liable but not the owner, awarding Gonzalez $30,000 plus costs and interest.

## Issues

1. Whether Gonzalez’s pleadings gave fair notice of a vicarious-liability (respondeat superior) theory against G.T. Management.
2. Whether legally and factually sufficient evidence showed the bouncers acted within the course and scope of employment when injuring Gonzalez.
3. Whether the trial court erred by admitting a chiropractor’s testimony on the reasonableness and necessity of medical charges.
4. Whether the $30,000 award lacked evidentiary support such that remittitur was required.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the judgment for Gonzalez.
- The pleadings were sufficient under the fair-notice standard to support submission and recovery on respondeat superior.
- The evidence was legally and factually sufficient for the fact-finder to conclude the bouncers acted within the scope of employment; excessive force did not, by itself, remove their conduct from the scope.
- Any challenge to the chiropractor’s testimony was not preserved because the trial objection did not match the complaint raised on appeal.
- Remittitur was denied because the appellant did not adequately challenge all elements supporting the general damages award, including non-economic damages.

## Legal Principles

- Texas pleadings are sufficient if they give fair and adequate notice of the facts and legal theories; specific labels such as “respondeat superior” are not required when the allegations put the defendant on notice of vicarious liability for employees’ acts.
- An employer may be vicariously liable for an employee’s assault if the fact-finder determines the employee acted within general authority and in furtherance of the employer’s business, including performing assigned security functions; use of excessive force may still fall within scope.
- Appellate review of evidentiary rulings requires error preservation: the legal basis for the appellate complaint must correspond to the objection made in the trial court.
- A challenge to a general damages award and a request for remittitur can fail if the appellant does not attack each independent element that could support the award (including pain and suffering).

## Conclusion

The court upheld a $30,000 judgment against a nightclub management company on a respondeat superior theory, concluding the pleadings provided fair notice and the evidence supported that bouncers acting as security were within the scope of employment even if force was excessive; objections to expert testimony and the damages amount were rejected due to lack of preservation and incomplete challenges.


G.T. Mgmt., Inc. v. Gonzalez, 106 S.W.3d 880 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2003, no pet.)