## Facts

- Near midnight on a rural interstate, David Cernat and Joseph Ciupitu drove a small truck towing a larger pickup at about twenty miles per hour below the speed limit.
- The towing arrangement lacked proper lighting connections; evidence conflicted on whether any lights on the towed vehicle were functioning.
- A Pilgrim’s Pride tractor-trailer driven by David Franklin Sharp, Jr. rear-ended the towed vehicle(s), causing a collision.
- Both plaintiffs were treated at a local hospital and released, then traveled home the next day, later seeking additional treatment for neck and back complaints.
- Cernat was self-employed and presented evidence that, before the collision, he performed substantial physical work (remodeling property, clearing land, building a shop) and did mechanical work for acquaintances, and that injuries impaired his ability to perform physical labor.

## Issues

1. Under Texas proportionate-responsibility law, did the trial court err by awarding each plaintiff 66-2/3% of his gross damages rather than reducing each plaintiff’s recovery by that plaintiff’s own percentage of responsibility?
2. Was the evidence legally and factually sufficient to support Cernat’s awards for past and future loss of earning capacity despite the absence of documented pre- or post-accident income?
3. Was the evidence legally and factually sufficient to support the jury’s awards of future medical expenses to both plaintiffs?

## Decision

- The court held the trial court misapplied Texas comparative-fault statutes when it calculated each plaintiff’s net recovery using a flat 66-2/3% multiplier.
- The court modified the judgment to apply a claimant-specific reduction based on each plaintiff’s percentage of responsibility (reducing each plaintiff’s damages by that plaintiff’s fault percentage).
- The court held legally and factually sufficient evidence supported Cernat’s past and future lost earning capacity awards.
- The court held legally and factually sufficient evidence supported the future medical expense awards for both Cernat and Ciupitu.
- The judgment was affirmed as modified.

## Legal Principles

- Under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 33.012(a), a claimant’s damages must be reduced by a percentage equal to that claimant’s percentage of responsibility; courts may not use a blended percentage disconnected from claimant-specific fault.
- Loss of earning capacity may be proved through evidence of the plaintiff’s abilities, work history, skills, and the physical limitations caused by the injury; documented wages are not required if the evidence supports a reasonable inference of diminished capacity to earn.
- Future medical expenses must be supported by evidence that future treatment will be required with reasonable probability and that the jury has a rational basis to estimate the probable cost; exact precision is not required.

## Conclusion

The appellate court corrected the trial court’s comparative-fault calculation by requiring each plaintiff’s recovery to be reduced by his own percentage of responsibility, while leaving intact the jury’s awards for Cernat’s lost earning capacity and both plaintiffs’ future medical expenses because the evidence was sufficient to support those damages.


Pilgrim’s Pride Corp. v. Cernat, 205 S.W.3d 110 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2006)