impairment defense in Texas

2014We cannot ignore a statute’s unambiguous language unless its meaning is so unreasonable that it “would lead to absurd results.” Combs, 401 S.W.3d at 629 ; see, e.g., Antonin Scalia & Bryan A. Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts 234 (2012) (explaining that courts can ignore a statute’s 3 unambiguous meaning only if that meaning “would result in a disposition that no reasonable person could approve”).

2014We cannot ignore a statute’s unambiguous language unless its meaning is so unreasonable that it “would lead to absurd results.” Combs, 401 S.W.3d at 629 ; see, e.g., Anto-nin Scalia & Bryan A. Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts 234 (2012) (explaining that courts can ignore a statute’s unambiguous meaning only if that meaning “would result in a disposition that no reasonable person could approve”).

2021In re Serio, No. 03-14-00786-CV, 2014 WL 7458735 , at *2 (Tex. App.—Austin Dec. 23, 2014, orig. proceeding) (citing In re C.S., 264 S.W.3d 864 , 874–75 (Tex. App.—Waco 2008, no pet.)).

2013Id.

2006Munoz , 991 S.W.2d at 829 ("bare assertion of dimming memories does not constitute some showing of an impairment to the defense"); Meyer , 27 S.W.3d at 650-51 .

1999Munoz, 960 S.W.2d at 200 ; see also Swisher v. State, 544 S.W.2d 379, 382 (Tex.Cr.App.1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1038 , 97 S.Ct. 734 , 50 L.Ed.2d 749 (1977).

1957Also in Henwood v. Moore, Tex.Civ.App., 203 S.W.2d 973 , an action by a 24 year old brakeman with a life expectancy of 39½ years, earning a gross monthly wage of $270, who received injuries to his head and right shoulder, necessitating several blood tranfusions and causing an unconscious condition for a week coupled with atrophy of the muscles in his right shoulder, the impairment of his hearing, the inability to lift his arm for several months higher than on a level parallel with the floor, and at the time of trial he still suffered pain in his head, it was held that $35,000 was excessive by

1957App., 203 S.W.2d 973 , an action by a 24 year old brakeman with a life expectancy of 39½ years, earning a gross monthly wage of $270, who received injuries to his head and right shoulder, necessitating several blood tranfusions and causing an unconscious condition for a week coupled with atrophy of the muscles in his right shoulder, the impairment of his hearing, the inability to lift his arm for several months higher than on a level parallel with the floor, and at the time of trial he still suffered pain in his head, it was held that $35,000 was excessive by $15,000, requiring a remittitur of

1957In Gillette Motor Transport Co. v. Whitfield, Tex.Civ.App., 197 S.W.2d 157 , affirmed 145 Tex. 571 , 200 S.W.2d 624 , an award of $44,000 to a brakeman on a railroad for very serious injuries was held to be so clearly excessive as to indicate that it was the result of passion, prejudice, or corruption or. that it was clear that the jury disregarded the evidence, necessitating the requiring of a remittitur of $12,-500.

1957In Gillette Motor Transport Co. v. Whitfield, Tex.Civ.App., 197 S.W.2d 157 , affirmed 145 Tex. 571 , 200 S.W.2d 624 , an award of $44,000 to a brakeman on a railroad for very serious injuries was held to be so clearly excessive as to indicate that it was the result of passion, prejudice, or corruption or. that it was clear that the jury disregarded the evidence, necessitating the requiring of a remittitur of $12,-500.

1957In Gillette Motor Transport Co. v. Whitfield, Tex.Civ.App., 197 S.W.2d 157 , affirmed 145 Tex. 571 , 200 S.W.2d 624 , an award of $44,000 to a brakeman on a railroad for very serious injuries was held to be so clearly excessive as to indicate that it was the result of passion, prejudice, or corruption or. that it was clear that the jury disregarded the evidence, necessitating the requiring of a remittitur of $12,-500.

1957In Gillette Motor Transport Co. v. Whitfield, Tex.Civ.App., 197 S.W.2d 157 , affirmed 145 Tex. 571 , 200 S.W.2d 624 , an award of $44,000 to a brakeman on a railroad for very serious injuries was held to be so clearly excessive as to indicate that it was the result of passion, prejudice, or *283 corruption or that it was clear that the jury disregarded the evidence, necessitating the requiring of a remittitur of $12,500.

1941Appellants rely upon Maryland Casualty Co. v. Dicken, Tex.Civ.App., 80 S.W.2d 800, which held that it was reversible error for a trial court to refuse to submit to the jury as defensive issues the question of whether or not a partial impairment of hearing was the only injury sustained as a result of an accident.