Peek v. Equipment Service Co. of San Antonio
779 S.W.2d 802, 1989 Tex. LEXIS 119, 33 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 77 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A plaintiff's petition that omits an allegation of the amount in controversy does not fail to invoke a court's jurisdiction. Such an omission is a curable pleading defect, and an amendment stating the jurisdictional amount will relate back to the original filing date for statute of limitations purposes.
Facts:
- On December 18, 1984, Marvin Wiley DeBerry, Jr. shot and killed Clyde Peek.
- DeBerry was an employee of Equipment Service Company.
- Prior to the shooting, DeBerry had been treated for mental illness by Dr. Victor J. Weiss and Dr. Burton O. Neeswig.
- DeBerry purchased the murder weapon from a store owned by Oshman’s Sporting Goods, Inc.
- Clyde Peek was survived by his widow, Lucie Allen Peek, and their four children (the Peeks).
Procedural Posture:
- On November 18, 1986, the Peeks sued DeBerry and five other defendants in Texas district court (trial court) for wrongful death and survival.
- The Peeks' original petition, filed before the two-year statute of limitations expired, did not state the amount of damages sought.
- On January 14, 1987, after the statute of limitations had run, the Peeks filed a second amended petition seeking over $8 million in damages.
- The defendants filed motions to dismiss, arguing the trial court lacked jurisdiction before the statute of limitations expired.
- The trial court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss.
- The Peeks (appellants) appealed to the Texas court of appeals.
- The court of appeals affirmed the trial court's dismissal.
- The Peeks (petitioners) successfully petitioned the Supreme Court of Texas for a writ of error.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a plaintiff's petition, which fails to allege a specific amount of damages or state that the damages exceed the court's minimum jurisdictional limits, fail to invoke the court's jurisdiction for the purpose of tolling the statute of limitations?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Phillips
No. A petition that fails to allege the amount in controversy does not fail to invoke the trial court's jurisdiction; instead, it constitutes a defect in pleading that is subject to amendment. The court held that unless a petition affirmatively demonstrates an absence of jurisdiction (for example, by pleading for an amount below the court's minimum), the court should presume jurisdiction exists. The court distinguished this case from precedents where a plaintiff specifically pleaded an amount below the jurisdictional limit, thereby pleading themselves out of court. Here, the Peeks' petition was merely silent on the amount. This omission is a curable defect, and the subsequent amendment that properly alleged damages related back to the original, timely filing, thus preventing the statute of limitations from barring the suit.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the principle that Texas courts favor resolving cases on their merits over dismissing them on procedural technicalities. It clarifies the distinction between a fatal jurisdictional flaw and a curable pleading defect. By holding that the omission of a jurisdictional amount is a curable defect, the court prevents defendants from using a plaintiff's minor pleading error as a loophole to escape liability via the statute of limitations. This precedent provides security for plaintiffs, ensuring that a timely but imperfectly pleaded petition is sufficient to commence an action and toll the limitations period.
