Summary
The Fourth Court of Appeals of Texas affirmed a final judgment in favor of Michelle Teresa Acosta on her claims for assault by offensive physical contact and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court held that legally and factually sufficient evidence supported the assault finding and the jury’s mental-anguish damages award, and that any error in submitting the intentional-infliction claim was harmless. The opinion also addresses the dismissal of Allan Roy Manka’s counterclaims under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 91a.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether legally and factually sufficient evidence supported the jury's finding that Manka committed civil assault by intentionally or knowingly causing offensive or provocative physical contact.
- Whether any error in submitting Acosta's intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim required reversal when Manka did not establish harm from the submission and the assault finding was independently affirmed.
- Whether legally and factually sufficient evidence supported the jury's awards of $3 million in past mental anguish damages and $2 million in future mental anguish damages.
- Whether the trial court properly granted Acosta's Rule 91a motions dismissing Manka's counterclaims.
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion by permitting Acosta to amend her pleading after the verdict to conform the pleaded amount of damages to the jury's award.
Holdings
- The evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support the jury's finding that Manka intentionally or knowingly touched Acosta in a manner he knew or reasonably should have known she would regard as offensive or provocative.
- Any error in submitting Acosta's intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim did not warrant reversal because Manka failed to show that the submission probably caused an improper judgment or otherwise prevented him from presenting his appellate arguments.
- The evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support the jury's awards of $3 million for past mental anguish and $2 million for future mental anguish.
- The trial court's dismissal of Manka's counterclaims was affirmed because Manka failed to challenge every independent ground asserted in Acosta's Rule 91a motions.
- The trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing Acosta to amend her pleading after the verdict to conform the amount of damages sought to the jury's award.
Key quotations
“Because “[t]he elements of a civil assault mirror those of a criminal assault,” a person can be civilly liable for assault if he intentionally or knowingly caused physical contact with another person when he knew or reasonably should have believed the other person would consider the contact offensive or provocative.” (at 4)
“Compensable mental anguish “implies a relatively high degree of mental pain and distress. It is more than mere disappointment, anger, resentment or embarrassment, although it may include all of these.”” (at 9)
“But after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment, we conclude that the number of days between the assault and the jury’s verdict and the cost of one hour of therapy were appropriate anchors, substantiated by the evidence, that the jurors could rely on to decide what they “would give in a day to not go through this reminder in this situation.”” (at 14)
“Because the trial court’s orders do not state the reasons for the rulings, Manka bore the burden on appeal to defeat each of the grounds Acosta raised in her Rule 91a motions.” (at 15)
Factual background
Manka and Acosta, both attorneys, represented opposing parties at a family-law hearing in June 2019. While they waited in a courthouse lobby, Manka made statements about touching female clients and opposing counsel to make them uncomfortable, touched Acosta's lower back, waist, hair, and shoulder, and, according to Acosta, grabbed and squeezed her buttocks. Acosta reported the incident to law enforcement and later sued for civil assault and intentional infliction of emotional distress. At trial, she presented testimony and treatment records describing panic attacks, anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress symptoms, sleep problems, and continuing professional and personal effects.
Procedural history
Acosta sued Manka in June 2021 for assault by offensive physical contact and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Manka asserted counterclaims for defamation, business disparagement, and tortious interference with contract; the trial court granted Acosta's Rule 91a motions dismissing the counterclaims. After a September 2024 jury trial, the jury found for Acosta on both claims, awarded past and future mental anguish damages, and rejected punitive damages. The trial court entered final judgment, Manka's post-trial motions were overruled by operation of law, and Manka appealed.