WPC |U :ɽc씚}\ ňn_u"w4|mSgA-T4OVGyu xzoXdX_ VhWީV)EEwSZ򩓟5$MRC{j}JZ4 *֫{Q+Zxj-t1җѷ|/@x4?aqGCۛnO DUoEyv1a%=ϥ|9|Z/xo?}$]@9mpvKL-/Sڭ4O/JuL# i& ʒ9XURN % 0 0 0] 0- 0 0 0X 0. 0  0 0 0 0) 0< 0N& 0at 0 0 0^ 0 0 0! 0h" 0L# 0# 0$ 0l%U<O& 0&U.S' 0T'U.( 0z) 0}) 6* 0=G* 0F* 0P* 1+ 0+ 1[, 0`-e. 0.UB. 0"/U:0UF0C1 05 0c6E7 0K7#8 0:;; 0X= 0jl= 0e= 0W;> 0W> 0> 0jx? 0? 0@ 0}A 0B 0C 0D 0%E 08:F 0KrG 0H 0I 0J 0J 0mK 0L 0L 0M 05N 0QN 1\O 8PnEKP>W BW^ WwW4WX mX(XnZ7X 7(] 7]V] 7](]N]N^ 0QD^ 1uG^ 72^ 1^ 0cu_ B_H````````b`aabYccdsf,g hhhijjNkmhruv@wwx/Pyz,{||g} wNj(ݛNM, âwbٮ`385˲"7Y99G^ xk5 <R*@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@x9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX($    8[V? @dXXd8    V& 8Document[8]Document Style0..8` ..` XXd8    Vy8Document[4]Document Style.. . XXd8    V 9{8Document[6]Document Style8... XXd8    V 9w8Document[5]Document Style0... XXd8    V:8Document[2]Document Style   2A.3  Ԁ   V& 8Document[7]Document Style0..0` ..` Ԁ    z` :Right Par[1]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..  2I.3  Ԁ..0..zs B:Right Par[2]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..  2A.3  Ԁ..0` ..` VJ8Document[3]Document Style..   21.3  Ԁ   z :Right Par[3]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  ..P   21.3  Ԁ` ..` 0 .. z &:Right Par[4]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..   2a.3  Ԁ .. 0..z {j:Right Par[5]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..  2(1)3  Ԁ..0h..hz Ĵ:Right Par[6]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h..  2(a)3  Ԁh..h0..z :Right Par[7]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....  2i)3  Ԁ..0..z :Right Par[8]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....p..  2a)3  Ԁ..0p..pVc08Document[1]Document Style  @..^    2I.3  Ԁ     Ԉ l= g:Technical[5]Technical Document Style..   2(1)3  Ԁ. l= :Technical[6]Technical Document Style..   2(a)3  Ԁ. l:%:Technical[2]Technical Document Style   2A.3  Ԁ   .. l7!:Technical[3]Technical Document Style   21.3  Ԁ   .. l6! ):Technical[4]Technical Document Style   2a.3  Ԁ   .. lE0 D:Technical[1]Technical Document Style    2I.3  Ԁ     .. l<a~:Technical[7]Technical Document Style..   2i)3  Ԁ. l<a:Technical[8]Technical Document Style..   2a)3  Ԁ. \h6Roman 12ptRoman Courier 12ptO1H  9`("Courier NewTTOV4Op. DraftOpinion -- Draft  =Y(Xdd=:%\  `$Times NewRoman(2$ !    8??=dd8     & A`ArialTTltt8Italic 12ptItalics Courier 12pt type[2H  9`(.Courier NewItalicTT[[2H  9`(.Courier NewItalicTT[7|A`$ArialTTR& 8BibliogrphyBibliography0....fE2Doc InitInitialize Document Style%( )    (&'(($0 ($0 0 (($0 0 0    A_ekqwDocumentDocument StyleI.1.A.a.(1)(a)i)a)jD4Tech InitInitialize Technical Style( + ( CuyTechnicalTechnical Document Style11.11.1.11.1.1.11.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1x?u2PleadingHeader for numbered pleading paper 3(2$ !    8??=dd8     % [  `*Times New RomanTT 2Home PtrSets codes for printing opinions on Sperry Laser X   C"3 HA`$ArialTTCXXXO1<6X9`("Courier NewTTO#12Xd#<6X9`("Courier NewTTH  9`(.Courier NewItalicTT  . thisparticularplaintiff,suchasplayinggolf,dancing,bowling,playingmusicalinstruments,andengaginginspecific   outdoorsports,whichmustbedistinguishedfrom [b]asiclossesor disabilitylossesthat includetheinabilityto   performthebasicmechanicalbodymovementsofwalking,climbingstairs,feedingoneself,anddrivingacar). ^ UI$  A^ XX    17    _SeeHoustonTransitCo.v.Felder,208S.W.2d880,88384(Tex.1948);Intl&G.N.Ry.Co.v.Butcher,  84S.W.1052,1053(Tex.1905);IntlGreatN.R.R.Co.v.King,41S.W.2d234,236(Tex.CommnApp.1931,  holdingapproved);seealsoDupontv.Preston,9P.3d1193,1197(Colo.Ct.App.2000)(physicalimpairmentcanresult TL inpecuniaryornonpecuniaryharm). ~ UI$  A^ XX    18    _755S.W.2d890,893(Tex.App."Houston[1stDist.]1988,writdenied);seealsoRosenboomMach.&Tool,  Inc.v.Machala,995S.W.2d817,825(Tex.App."Houston[1stDist.]1999,pet.denied). UI$  A^ XX    19    _755S.W.2dat893. UI$  A^ XX    20    _44S.W.3d558(Tex.2001). UI$  A^ XX    21    _Id.at561. UI$  A^ XX    22    _Id.at560. % UI$  A^ XX    23    _Estradav.Dillon,23S.W.3d422,42728(Tex.App."Amarillo2000),revdinpart,44S.W.3d558(Tex.  2001). UI$  A^ XX    24    _Id.at427. UI$  A^ XX    25    _Estrada,44S.W.3dat562(citingTex.R.app.P.44.1(b)). UI$  A^ XX    26    _Id.at561. UI$  A^ XX    27    _Id. v UI$  A^ XX    28    _See,e.g.,Greenv.Baldree,497S.W.2d342,350(Tex.Civ.App."Houston[14thDist.]1973,nowrit)  (observing [i]twouldnotbeproperineverypersonalinjurycasetoinstructthejurythatitmightconsiderlossofearning  capacity,painandphysicalimpairmentasseparateelementsofplaintiffsdamage,butconcludingthat inalmostall TL ofsuchcases,ifnotallofthem,thedefendantwouldbeentitled,onrequest,tohavethecourtsubmitaspecialinstruction  thatwouldbecalculatedtopreventthejuryfromallowingadoublerecovery);SantaRosaMed.Ctr.v.Robinson,560   S.W.2d751,760(Tex.Civ.App."SanAntonio1977,nowrit)(reviewingchargethatincludedphysicalpainandmental F > anguish,lossofearnings,andphysicalimpairment,concludingthat [t]hereisclearlyapossibilityofsomeoverlapping   andblendingintheissuesassubmitted,butfindingnoreversibleerror);Mikellv.LaBeth,344S.W.2d702,709(Tex.   Civ.App."Houston1961,writrefdn.r.e.)(concludingthatwhenphysicalimpairmentanddiminishedcapacitytowork 8 0 andearnmoneywerebothsubmitted, therewasnonecessaryduplicationofelementsofdamage....Butifweare    mistakeninthis,weareoftheopinionthatappellants[pointoferror]neverthelessmustbeoverruledbecausethe  |  objectionmadetotheissueintheTrialCourtdidnotspecificallypointoutthattherewasanyduplicationintheelements *"  ofdamageassubmitted.).  UI$  A^ XX    29    _Blankenshipv.Mirick,984S.W.2d771,777(Tex.App."Waco1999,pet.denied);Peterv.OgdenGround  Servs.,Inc.,915S.W.2d648,650(Tex.App."Houston[14thDist.]1996,nowrit);Sharm,Inc.v.Martinez,900S.W.2d  777,784(Tex.App."CorpusChristi1995,judgmtvacated);Pipgrasv.Hart,832S.W.2d360,366(Tex.App."Fort TL Worth1992,writdenied);LawsonAvilaConstr.,Inc.v.Stoutamire,791S.W.2d584,599(Tex.App."SanAntonio  1990,writdenied);TriStateMotorTransitCo.v.Nicar,765S.W.2d486,493(Tex.App."Houston[14thDist.]1989,   nowrit);Robinsonv.Minick,755S.W.2d890,893(Tex.App."Houston[1stDist.]1988,writdenied);S.Pac.Transp. F > Co.v.Harlow,729S.W.2d946,950(Tex.App."CorpusChristi1987),writdismd,improvidentlygranted,745S.W.2d    320(Tex.1988);Landacrev.ArmstrongBldg.Maint.Co.,725S.W.2d323,324(Tex.App."CorpusChristi1986,writ  refdn.r.e.);BakerMarineCorp.v.Herrera,704S.W.2d58,62(Tex.App."CorpusChristi1985,writrefdn.r.e.);  Allenv.Whisenhunt,603S.W.2d242,244(Tex.Civ.App."Houston[14thDist.]1980,writdismd);Browningv.Paiz, TL 586S.W.2d670,675(Tex.Civ.App."CorpusChristi1979,writrefdn.r.e.);Frenchv.Grigsby,567S.W.2d604,607  (Tex.Civ.App."Beaumont),writrefdn.r.e.,571S.W.2d867(Tex.1978);SantaRosaMed.Ctr.,560S.W.2dat760;   Green,497S.W.2dat350. UI$  A^ XX    30    _29S.W.3dat928(quotingBlankenship,984S.W.2dat777). UI$  A^ XX    31    _SeeRosenboomMach.&Tool,Inc.v.Machala,995S.W.2d817,82628(Tex.App."Houston[1stDist.]  1999,pet.denied);Blankenship,984S.W.2dat778(concludingthatevidencethatplaintiffcouldnolongerdoaerobic  exercises,shedidnotwalkaswell,herkneesgaveout,andherphysiciansaidlikelihoodofdevelopingarthritiswas TL muchhigherwassufficienttosupportawardforphysicalimpairment);Peter,915S.W.2dat650;LawsonAvilaConstr.,  Inc.,791S.W.2dat600(notingthatphysiciantestifiedthat27yearoldplaintiffwouldhavetorestricthisactivitiesfor   therestofhislifeandhisconditionwouldbecomeworseovertime);TriStateMotorTransitCo.,765S.W.2dat493 F > (concludingthatevidenceoflossofabilitytoenjoyrecreationalsportssupportedaward);S.Pac.Transp.Co.,729   S.W.2dat95051;Allen,603S.W.2dat244(observingthatplaintiffcouldnolongerengageinmanuallaborasan   employeeorforhisownbenefit,mowalawn,orplaybasketball);Plattv.Fregia,597S.W.2d495,49596(Tex.Civ. 8 0 App."Beaumont1980,writrefdn.r.e.);Browning,586S.W.2dat675(observingthatphysiciantestifiedthatcondition    ofplaintiffslegwaspermanentandtheprognosiswaspoor,perhapsrequiringamputation);French,567S.W.2dat607  |  08;SantaRosaMed.Ctr.,560S.W.2dat760(concludingthatevidenceofpartialparalysis,spasticity,difficultyfocusing *"  botheyes,slurringofwords,andinabilitytoperformanyoftheusualtasksofaworkingmansupportedawardfor   physicalimpairment);CharlesT.PictonLumberCo.v.Redden,452S.W.2d713,723(Tex.Civ.App."CorpusChristi vn  1970,writrefdn.r.e.)(notingthatplaintiff,aparaplegic,waspermanentlyinjuredandwouldrequirebraces,crutches,   orawheelchair);Dr.PepperBottlingCo.v.Rainboldt,66S.W.2d496,501(Tex.Civ.App."Waco1933),revdon   othergrounds,Schroederv.Rainboldt,97S.W.2d679(Tex.1936)(plaintiffsbladderwaspermanentlyinjuredandshe h`  wouldbeunabletohavechildren);seealsoMo.Pac.R.R.Co.v.Handley,341S.W.2d203,205(Tex.Civ.App."San   Antonio1960,nowrit).  UI$  A^ XX    32    _See,e.g.,SchindlerElevatorCorp.v.Anderson,78S.W.3d392,41213(Tex.App."Houston[14thDist.]  2001,_judgmt_Ԁvacated)(holdingthattemporaryinjuriessupportedawardforpastphysicalimpairment,butthat  permanentinjuriessupportedawardforfuturephysicalimpairment). UI$  A^ XX    33    _44S.W.3d558,56162(Tex.2001). UI$  A^ XX    34    _84S.W.1052(Tex.1905). UI$  A^ XX    35    _60S.W.314,316(Tex.Civ.App.1901,nowrit). UI$  A^ XX    36    _Id. UI$  A^ XX    37    _66S.W.2dat497. UI$  A^ XX    38    _Id.at501. UI$  A^ XX    39    _Id. UI$  A^ XX    40    _Id. UI$  A^ XX    41    _Id. " UI$  A^ XX    42    _See,e.g.,Mo.Pac.R.R.Co.v.Lane,720S.W.2d830,834(Tex.App."Texarkana1986,writdenied);Spohn  Hosp.v.Mayer,72S.W.3d52,67(Tex.App.!CorpusChristi2001),revdonothergrounds,104S.W.3d878(Tex.  2003);BrookshireBros.,Inc.v.Wagnon,979S.W.2d343,353(Tex.App!Tyler1998,pet.denied). UI$  A^ XX    43    _Akersv.KelleyCo.,219Cal.Rptr.513,526(Cal.Ct.App.1985);Lothv.TruckAWayCorp.,70Cal.Rptr.  2d571,575(Cal.Ct.App.1998);Knightv.Lord,648N.E.2d617,623(Ill.App.Ct.1995);Senav.N.M.StatePolice,  892P.2d604,61011(N.M.Ct.App.1995)(notingthatlossofenjoymentoflifeisafactortobeconsideredinrelation TL tootherelementsofdamagesuchasdisability,pain,suffering,andmentalanguish);Jonesv.ChicagoOsteopathicHosp.,  738N.E.2d542,55455(Ill.App.Ct.2000);FritoLay,Inc.v.Cloud,569N.E.2d983,989(Ind.Ct.App.1991);Poyzer   v.McGraw,360N.W.2d748,753(Iowa1985);Gregoryv.Carey,791P.2d1329,1336(Kan.1990);Adamsv.Miller, F > 908S.W.2d112,116(Ky.1995)(holdingthathedonicvalueoflife isalreadyrecoverableintherecognizedcategory   ofmentalsuffering);Anuntiv.Payette,268N.W.2d52,55(Minn.1978);Andersonv.Neb.DeptofSoc.Servs.,572   N.W.2d362,367(Neb.1998)(holdingthatlossofenjoymentoflifemayproperlybeconsideredasitrelatestopainand 8 0  sufferingandtodisability,butitisimpropertotreatitasaseparatecategoryofnonpecuniarydamages);Bennettv.  Lembo,761A.2d494,498(N.H.2000);Wiltv.Buracker,443S.E.2d196,207(W.Va.1993);butseeOgdenv.J.M.  SteelErecting,Inc.,31P.3d806,813(Ariz.Ct.App.2001);Prestonv.Dupont,35P.3d433,441(Colo.2001); TL Montalvov.Lapez,884P.2d345,364(Haw.1994);Curtisv.Porter,784A.2d18,26(Me.2001);Kan.CityS.Ry.Co.  v.Johnson,798So.2d374,38081(Miss.2001);Moscatellov.Univ.ofMed.andDentistry,776A.2d874,881(N.J.   Super.Ct.App.Div.2001);Boanv.Blackwell,541S.E.2d242,244(S.C.2001);Overstreetv.Shoneys,Inc.,4S.W.3d F > 694,715(Tenn.Ct.App.1999);Kirkv.Wash.StateUniv.,746P.2d285,29293(Wash.1987);Marinerv.Marsden,   610P.2d6,12(Wyo.1980). UI$  A^ XX    44    _720S.W.2dat834. m UI$  A^ XX    45    _813S.W.2d658,674(Tex.App."Texarkana1991,writdenied)(statingthatlossofenjoymentoflife may  betreatedasafactorindeterminingdamagesingeneralorforpainandsuffering). UI$  A^ XX    46    _72S.W.3dat67. UI$  A^ XX    47    _979S.W.2dat353. V UI$  A^ XX    48    _956S.W.2d590,599(Tex.App."Tyler1997),_revd_Ԁonothergrounds,1S.W.3d91(Tex.1999)(reversing  awardofattorneysfees). . UI$  A^ XX    49    _SchindlerElevatorCorp.v.Anderson,78S.W.3d392,412(Tex.App."Houston[14thDist.]2001,judgmt  vacated). + UI$  A^ XX    50    _SantaRosaMed.Ctr.v.Robinson,560S.W.2d751,762(Tex.Civ.App."SanAntonio1977,nowrit)  (Cadena,C.J.,dissenting).  UI$  A^ XX    51    _SeegenerallyBoanv.Blackwell,541S.E.2d242,24445(S.C.2001)(holdingthat,whensupportedbythe  evidence,ajuryshallbechargedthattheinjuredpersonisentitledtorecoverdamagesforlossofenjoymentoflife);Kan.  CityS.Ry.Co.,Inc.v.Johnson,798So.2d374,380(Miss.2001)(holdingthat lossofenjoymentoflifeshouldbefully TL compensatedandshouldbeconsideredonitsownmeritsasaseparateelementofdamages,notasapartofonespain  andsuffering);Ogdenv.J.M.SteelErecting,Inc.,31P.3d806,813(Ariz.Ct.App.2001)(holdingthata separate   chargeonhedonicdamageswillminimizetheriskthatajurywillunderorovercompensateaninjuredpersonforher F > noneconomiclosses);Jonesv.ChicagoOsteopathicHosp.,738N.E.2d542,554(Ill.App.Ct.2000)(statingthat loss   ofnormallifehasalmostuniversallybeeninterpretedasacomponentofdisabilitywhichcompensatesforachangein   theplaintiffslifestyle);Knepperv.Robin,745So.2d1248,1257(La.Ct.App.1999)(holdingthattrialcourterred 8 0 in depriv[ing]thejurorsoftheopportunitytoconsiderthedistinctionsbetweenlossofenjoymentoflifeandthegeneral    damagesofpainandsuffering);Lothv.TruckAWayCorp.,70Cal.Rptr.2d571,575(Cal.Ct.App.1998)(surveying  |  decisionsandholdingthat [l]ossofenjoymentoflife,however,isonlyonecomponentofageneraldamageawardfor *"  painandsuffering[but]isnotcalculatedasaseparateaward);Smallwoodv.Bradford,720A.2d586,59295(Md.   1998)(examiningauthorities,concludingthatlossofenjoymentoflifewasnotrecoverablewhendecedentwasalmost vn  instantlykilledinacarcrash);Adamsv.Miller,908S.W.2d112,116(Ky.1995)(holdingthathedonicvalueoflife is   alreadyrecoverableintherecognizedcategoryofmentalsuffering);Knightv.Lord,648N.E.2d617,623(Ill.App.Ct.   1995)(notingthatlossofenjoymentoflifeisacomponentofdisabilitydamages,buttheterm lossofanormallife h`  islesslikelytobemisunderstoodthan disability);Fantozziv.SanduskyCementProds.Co.,597N.E.2d474,48187   (Ohio1992)(surveyingdecisionsregardinglossofenjoymentoflifeandholdingthat permittingaseparateinterrogatory   andjuryfindingonthisdamage,wouldhelpthejuryunderstandexactlywhatclaimeddamagesitisaddressing);Eyoma ZR  v.Falco,589A.2d653,658(N.J.Super.Ct.App.Div.1991)(holdingthatlossofenjoymentoflifeisaseparateand   distinctitemofdamages);FritoLay,Inc.v.Cloud,569N.E.2d983,989(Ind.Ct.App.1991)(holdingit iserrorto   instructthejuryonthelossofqualityandenjoymentoflifeasanelementofdamagesseparatefromotherelementsof LD damage,suchaspainandsufferingorpermanencyofinjury);Gregoryv.Carey,791P.2d1329,133536(Kan.1990)  (discussingthevariousdecisionsthathaveconsideredlossofenjoymentoflifeandconcludingthatitis inextricably  includedwithinthemoretraditionalareasofdamagesfordisabilityandpainandsuffering);Nussbaumv.Gibstein,536 >6 N.E.2d618,619(N.Y.1989)(holdingthat lossofenjoymentoflifeisnotaseparateelementofdamagesdeservinga  distinctawardbutis,instead,onlyafactortobeconsideredbythejuryinassessingdamagesforconsciouspainand  suffering);McDougaldv.Garber,536N.E.2d372,37677(N.Y.1989)(surveyingauthoritiesandholdingthatloss 0( ofenjoymentoflifeisapermissiblefactorinassessingpainandsuffering,butnopurposewouldbeservedbyhaving  thejurymakeseparateawards);seegenerally_Hermes,_ԀLossofEnjoymentofLife!DuplicationofDamagesVersusFull |t Compensation,63N.D.L.Rev.561(1987);Annotation,LossofEnjoymentofLifeasDistinctElementorFactorin " % AwardingDamagesforBodilyInjury,34A.L.R.4th293(1984);Cramer,Comment,LossofEnjoymentofLifeasa  SeparateElementofDamages,12Pac.L.J.965(1981).  UI$  A^ XX    52    _See,e.g.,Greenv.Baldree,497S.W.2d342,350(Tex.Civ.App."Houston[14thDist.]1973,nowrit)  (holdingthat [t]heplaintiffmustsustaintheburdenofprovingthattheeffectofhisphysicalimpairmentextendsbeyond  anyimpedimenttohisearningcapacityandbeyondanypainandsufferingtotheextentthatitproducesaseparateand TL distinctlossthatissubstantialandforwhichheshouldbecompensated).  UI$  A^ XX    53    _29S.W.3dat928(quotingBlankenshipv.Mirick,984S.W.2d771,777(Tex.App."Waco1999,pet.  denied)).  UI$  A^ XX    54    _See,e.g.,RosenboomMach.&Tool,Inc.v.Machala,995S.W.2d817,825(Tex.App."Houston[1stDist.]  1999,pet.denied);Green,497S.W.2dat350(commentingthatwhenphysicalimpairmentissubmittedasaseparate  element, thedefendantwouldbeentitled,onrequest,tohavethecourtsubmitaspecialinstructionthatwouldbe TL calculatedtopreventthejuryfromallowingadouble_recovery);_ԀseealsoRobinsonv.Minick,755S.W.2d890,89495  (Tex.App."Houston[1stDist.]1988,writdenied)(statingthatlimitinginstructionmighthavepreventedjuryfrom   consideringpastphysicalimpairmentinmakingitsawardforotherelements). UI$  A^ XX    55    _567S.W.2d604(Tex.Civ.App."Beaumont),writrefdn.r.e.,571S.W.2d867(Tex.1978). UI$  A^ XX    56    _Id.at608. UI$  A^ XX    57    _TexasPatternJuryChargesPJC8.2(2000ed.).  UI$  A^ XX    58    _See,e.g.,Thomasv.Oldham,895S.W.2d352,360(Tex.1995);Pricev.Short,931S.W.2d677,688(Tex.  App."Dallas1996,nowrit);GreaterHoustonTransp.,Inc.v.Zrubeck,850S.W.2d579,589(Tex.App."Corpus  Christi1993,writdenied). UI$  A^ XX    59    _SeePrice,931S.W.2dat688. UI$  A^ XX    60    _GreaterHoustonTransp.,Inc.,850S.W.2dat589. T UI$  A^ XX    61    _SeeGilletteMotorTransp.Co.v.Whitfield,200S.W.2d624,626(Tex.1947);seealsoInre_K.R._,63S.W.3d  796,80001(Tex.2001);Turner,Collie,&Braden,Inc._v._Ԁ_Brookhollow_,Inc.,642S.W.2d160,167(Tex.1982);  Daughertyv.S.Pac.Transp.Co.,772S.W.2d81,83(Tex.1989). UI$  A^ XX    62    _Kan.CityS.Ry.Co.v.Johnson,798So.2d374,381(Miss.2001)(distinguishinglossofenjoymentoflife  frompainandsuffering,notingthat [a]permanentinjurydiffersfrompainandsufferinginthatitisaninjuryfromwhich  theplaintiffcannotcompletelyrecover);Ogdenv.J.M.SteelErecting,Inc.,31P.3d806,813(Ariz.Ct.App.2001) TL (defininglossofenjoymentoflifeas damages[that]compensatetheindividualnotonlyforthesubjectiveknowledge  thatonecannolongerenjoyalloflifespursuits,butalsofortheobjectivelossoftheabilitytoengageinthese   activities);Bennettv.Lembo,761A.2d494,498(N.H.2000)(holdingthatdamagesforlossofenjoymentoflifeare F > acomponentofpermanentimpairment);Senav.N.M.StatePolice,892P.2d604,611(N.M.Ct.App.1995)(holding   that NewMexicopermitsproofofnonpecuniarydamagesresultingfromthelossofenjoymentoflifeintortactions   involvingpermanentinjuries);Laingv.Am.HondaMotorCo.,Inc.,628So.2d196,204(La.Ct.App.1993)(finding 8 0 evidencesufficienttosupportawardforhedonicdamageswhen,sevenyearsaftertheaccident,plaintiffcouldnotfeed    himselforenjoywritingorcooking,andrequiredassistancetoperformbasictasks);Wiltv.Buracker,443S.E.2d196,  |  200(W.Va.1993)(statingthat damagesforthelossofenjoymentoflifeareavalidelementofrecoverywhena *"  plaintiffhassufferedapermanentinjury)(emphasisomitted);Fantozziv.SanduskyCementProds.Co.,597N.E.2d   474,48687(Ohio1992)(holdingthatajuryshouldbeinstructedthatitmayawarddamagesforaninabilitytoperform vn  usualactivitiesoflifeorusualactivitiesthatgivepleasureifitfindsapermanentdisability);Eyomav.Falco,589A.2d   653,662(N.J.Super.Ct.App.Div.1991)(holdingthatlossofenjoymentoflifeisanelementofthepermanentinjury   aplaintiffhassuffered);Kirkv.Wash.StateUniv.,746P.2d285,29293(Wash.1987)(holdingthattrialcourtdidnot h`  errinallowingjurytoconsiderlossofenjoymentoflifewheninjurytoplaintiffselbowwaspermanentandshecould   notbecomeaprofessionaldancer);Gowdyv.UnitedStates,271F.Supp.733,751(W.D.Mich.1967)(notingin   reviewingevidenceoflossofenjoymentoflifethattheplaintiffsimpairmentwaspermanent). a UI$  A^ XX    63    _Smithv.CityofEvanston,631N.E.2d1269,1279(Ill.App.Ct.1994)(notingthat lossofanormallife  shouldbe definedasplaintiffsdiminishedabilitytoenjoylifethattheplaintiffhasexperienced,whichshouldinclude  plaintiffstemporaryorpermanentinabilitytopursuethepleasurableaspectsoflife,suchasrecreationorhobbies) TL (citationomitted). UI$  A^ XX    64    _44S.W.3d558(Tex.2001). UI$  A^ XX    65    _Bergerv.Weber,303N.W.2d424,436(Mich.1981). UI$  A^ XX    66    _Am.NatlWatermattressCorp.v.Manville,642P.2d1330,1341(Alaska1982). UI$  A^ XX    67    _755S.W.2d890(Tex.App."Houston[1stDist.]1988,writdenied). UI$  A^ XX    68    _29S.W.3dat929. UI$  A^ XX    69    _755S.W.2dat894. UI$  A^ XX    70    _29S.W.3dat929. UI$  A^ XX    71    _725S.W.2d323,325(Tex.App."CorpusChristi1986,writrefdn.r.e.). UI$  A^ XX    72    _597S.W.2d495,49596(Tex.Civ.App."Beaumont1980,writrefdn.r.e.).  UI$  A^ XX    73    _725S.W.2dat325;seealsoPlatt,597S.W.2dat49596(holdingthatjurywasnotrequiredtoaward  damagesforphysicalimpairmentinadditiontodamagesforpastphysicalandmentalanguisheventhoughplaintiff  severelyinjuredhisknee,surgerywasrequired,andtherewasa30%functionalloss). UI$  A^ XX    74    _822S.W.2d223,230(Tex.App."Dallas1991,writdenied).  UI$  A^ XX    75    _Id.at231;seealsoWaltripv.BilbonCorp.,38S.W.3d873,88182(Tex.App."Beaumont2001,pet.  denied)(holdingthat$100awardforpastphysicalpainandmentalanguishwasnotagainstgreatweightand  preponderanceoftheevidence);Sritev.OwensIll.,Inc.,870S.W.2d556,563(Tex.App."Houston[1stDist.]1993), TL revdonothergrounds,OwensIll.,Inc.v.Burt,897S.W.2d765(Tex.1995)(reversingonlyonprejudgmentinterest). UI$  A^ XX    76    _884S.W.2d811,820(Tex.App."Dallas1994,writdenied). UI$  A^ XX    77    _Id.at819. UI$  A^ XX    78    _Id.at820. UI$  A^ XX    79    _715S.W.2d629,635(Tex.1986). UI$  A^ XX    80    _Tex.R.Civ.P.277. Hecht Utilf]urtherIn In H]ezombied RptrHandleyKuzash]edonicb]asicFelderIntl S.W.CommnnonpecuniaryMinick t]heRosenboomMachala o]urEstradarevdBaldree i]tt]hereMikellrefdn.r.e.BlankenshipMirickServsSharmjudgmtPipgrasAvilaStoutamireNicardismdLandacreMaintHerreraWhisenhunt PaizGrigsby t]oFregiaspasticityRainboldtjudgtSpohnBrookshireWagnon SenaPoyzerMcGraw KanAnuntiPayetteDeptLemboMontalvoLapezShoneyMarsdenl]osse]videncep]hysicalCadena Boan J.M.noneconomicKnepperdepriv[ingSmallwoodEyomaNussbaumGibsteinMcDougaldGarberN.D.L.Rev L.J.nexisduplicative PJCZrubeckWhitfieldLaingFantozziGowdycuriamNatlWatermattressManvillefactfinderPilkingtonKornellWaltripBilbonSritemean,howeverGrider"u]ncontroverted uncontroverted i]n !    8'I?=dd8     _  @  INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTEXAS   @@@$  @%No.010007   @@@$     GoldenEagleArchery,Inc.     @)v.     RonaldJackson <4    @XX   @44OnPetitionforReviewfromthe   @5 5 CourtofAppealsfortheNinthDistrictofTexas |  @XX LD  @:: ArguedonOctober16,2002        JusticeOwendeliveredtheopinionoftheCourt,inwhichChiefJusticePhillips,Justice ld Hecht,JusticeEnoch,JusticeSmith,andJusticeWainwrightjoined. 4,   JusticeO'Neillfiledaconcurringopinion,inwhichJusticeSchneiderjoined.    JusticeJeffersondidnotparticipateinthedecision. TL   Inthiscase,weresolvehowcourtsofappealsaretoconductafactualsufficiencyreview  when1)ajuryispermittedtoawarddamagesforelementsthatsomewhatoverlap,2)thejuryis <4 instructednottoduplicateanawardforanyparticularloss,and3)thejuryawardsnodamagesor  damagesthatareallegedlyinadequateforanelementthatcouldoverlapwithanother. \!T!   Becausethecourtofappealsinthiscasedidnotproperlyapplythestandardofreviewset "# forthinPoolv.FordMotorCo.,w i#  1      ׀andbecausethisCourthasneverbeforearticulatedthestandard |$t% forfactualsufficiencyreviewwhenevidencepertainstomorethanonecategoryofdamages,we  &' reversethecourtofappealsjudgmentx6 i#  2      ׀andremandthiscasetothatcourtforanotherfactual ' ) sufficiencyreview. ,)$"+ @* & v I     ThisisthesecondtimethatthiscasehasbeenbeforeourCourt.Inourpriordecision,y i#  3      ׀we  consideredallegedjurormisconductandwhetherTexasRuleofCivilProcedure327(b)andTexas (  'v@ RuleofEvidence606(b),limitingproofofjurormisconduct,areconstitutional.Weheldthatthere   wasnocompetentevidenceofjurormisconductandthatRules327(b)and606(b)neitherdeprive H @ litigantsofafairtrialundertheTexasConstitutionnorfailtoaffordlitigantsdueprocess.z6 i#  4      ׀We   remandedthecasetothecourtofappealstoconsiderissuesithadnotreached.{ i#  5      ׀Onremand,the h`  courtofappealsheldthatthejurysfailuretoawardanydamagesforacategoryofphysical   impairmentwassoagainstthegreatweightandpreponderanceoftheevidencethatthezerodamages   awardwasmanifestlyunjustandrequiredanewtrial.| i#  6      ׀Ourfocusisonthatissue.    RonaldJacksonreceivedacompoundhuntingbowmanufacturedbyGoldenEagleArchery  asagiftfromhiswife.Whenshepresentedittohim,heattemptedtodemonstratehowitisused. 80 Thebowwentoutofcontrol,andthemetalrodthatseparatedthebowstringfromthecablesstruck  Jacksonintheeye.Hebledprofusely,requiredemergencytreatmentatonehospital,wastransferred XP toanotherhospitalforadditionaltreatment,andspenttendaysthere.Hesufferedbrokenbones  aroundtheorbitofhiseye,somelossofvision,arupturedsinus,andabrokennose.Upondischarge xp hewasinstructedtolimitactivitiestoavoidstrainingorlifting.Aboutamonthlater,heunderwent    surgerytorepairtheorbitalfracturesandotherreconstructivesurgeryandwashospitalizedan !"  additionalthreedays.Jacksonwasunabletoworkforabouttwomonthsafterthedateofthe (# $ accidentwiththebow.Hereturnedtoworkthereafter,buthassomepermanentimpairmenttohis  eyeandvision,andsomedisfigurement.     JacksonsuedGoldenEagle,allegingthatthebowwasdefectivelydesignedandmarketed. (  Thejuryfailedtofindadesigndefect,butfoundthatGoldenEagledidnotgiveadequatewarnings   oftheproductsdanger.Asingledamagequestionwassubmittedinwhichthejurywaspermitted H @ toawarddamagesinsixseparatecategories.Theyawarded$25,393.10formedicalcare,$2,500for   physicalpainandmentalanguish,$2,500for physicalimpairmentoflossofvision,$0for h`   physicalimpairmentotherthanthelossofvision,$1,500fordisfigurement,and$4,600forloss   ofearningsinthepast.     ThetrialcourtrenderedjudgmentontheverdictinfavorofJackson,andJacksonappealed.  Aswehavealreadydescribedabove,thecourtofappealsreversedthetrialcourtsjudgmentafter  concludingthattwoofourrulesofprocedurewereunconstitutional.Wereversedthecourtof 80 appealsandremandedother,unresolvedissuestothatcourt.Followingthatremand,thecourtof  appealsconsideredJacksonscontentionthathewasentitledtoanewtrialbecausethejurysfailure XP toawardanydamagesfor physicalimpairmentotherthanlossofvisionwasagainstthegreat  weightandpreponderanceoftheevidence.Jacksonalsocontendedthatthejurysawardsfor xp physicalpainandmentalanguish,physicalimpairmentbecauseoflossofvision,anddisfigurement    wereinadequateandrequiredanewtrial.ThecourtofappealsagreedwithJacksonregardingthe !" awardofnodamagesforphysicalimpairmentotherthanlossofvision.Itremandedthecasefora (# $ newtrialandthereforedidnotreachJacksonsotherissuesonappeal. $&   GoldenEaglefiledapetitionforreviewinourCourt.Wegrantedthatpetitiontoconsider H&@( theproperstandardtobeappliedinconductingafactualsufficiencyreviewofajurysfailureto ' *  awardanydamagesforphysicalimpairment. h)`", @) & @    II     AlthoughthisCourtdoesnothavejurisdictiontoconductafactualsufficiencyreview,we  dohavejurisdictiontodeterminewhetheracourtofappealshasappliedthecorrectstandardin (  '@C conductingafactualsufficiencyreview.} i#  7      ׀Itisafamiliarprinciplethatinconductingafactual   sufficiencyreview,acourtmustnotmerelysubstituteitsjudgmentforthatofthejury.~ i#  8      ׀Itisan H @ equallyfamiliarprinciplethatthejuryisthesolejudgeofthecredibilityofwitnessesandtheweight   tobegiventotheirtestimony. i#  9       h`    WeheldinPoolv.FordMotorCo.thatinorderforthisCourttoconductameaningful   reviewofwhetheracourtofappealshascorrectlyappliedthefactualsufficiencystandard,courtsof   appeals should,intheiropinions,detailtheevidencerelevanttotheissueinconsiderationand  clearlystatewhythejurysfindingisfactuallyinsufficientorissoagainstthegreatweightand  preponderanceastobemanifestlyunjust;whyitshockstheconscience;orclearlydemonstrates 80 bias.^ i#  10      ׀Pointedly,weadded, [f]urther,thosecourts,intheiropinions,shouldstateinwhatregard  thecontraryevidencegreatlyoutweighstheevidenceinsupportoftheverdict.Itisonlyinthisway XP thatwewillbeabletodetermineiftherequirementsofInreKingsEstatehavebeensatisfied. i#  11      ׀  WeheldinInreKingsEstatethatacourtofappealsmust xp 8  considerandweighalloftheevidenceinthecaseandtosetasidetheverdictand    remandthecauseforanewtrial,ifitthusconcludesthattheverdictissoagainstthe  ! greatweightandpreponderanceoftheevidenceastobemanifestlyunjust!this, !" regardlessofwhethertherecordcontainssome evidenceofprobativeforcein `"X# supportoftheverdict....Theevidencesupportingtheverdictistobeweighed (# $ alongwiththeotherevidenceinthecase,includingthatwhichiscontrarytothe  verdict. i#  12         Ѐ)6" ,XX X?xXX6  Beforeacourtcanproperlyconductafactualsufficiencyreview,itmustfirsthaveaclear ` X understandingoftheevidencethatispertinenttoitsinquiry.Thestartingpointgenerallyisthe   chargeandinstructionstothejury.Inthiscasethejurywasinstructedandansweredasfollows:  x 8    Whatsumofmoney,ifpaidnowincash,wouldfairlyandreasonably   compensateRonaldJacksonforhisdamages,ifany,thatresultedfromtheinjuryin   question?    8    Considertheelementsofdamageslistedbelowandnoneother.Considereach 0(  elementseparately.Donotincludedamagesforoneelementinanyotherelement.   Donotincludeinterestonanyamountofdamagesyoufind.    8    Donotreducetheamounts,ifany,inyouranswersbecauseofthenegligence, PH  ifany,ofRonaldJackson.   8    Answerindollarsandcentsfordamages,ifany,thatweresustainedinthepast  andthatinreasonableprobabilitywillbesustainedinthefuture,unlessotherwise ph instructed.80   8    Answer:    l(5h83j8    a.Medicalcare0  0h  0h h 0   p 0  $25,393.10XP   8    b.Physicalpainandmentalanguish0  0p  0p p 0?  $2,500.00 ? ?  8    c.Physicalimpairmentoflossofvision0p  0p p 0?  $2,500.000@_  ? ?  8    d.Physicalimpairmentotherthanlossofvision0  0?  $0? ?  8    e.Disfigurement0h  0h h 0  0p  0p p 0?  $1,500.00xp? ?  8    f.Lossofearningsinthepast0  0  0p  0p p 0?  $4,600.00-@8? ?    Theonlydefinitionthatwasgivenregardingthisquestionwasadefinitionof injurythat  ! said: Injurymeansdamageorharmtothephysicalstructureofthebodyandsuchdiseasesor `"X# infectionasnaturallyresulttherefrom,ortheincitement,acceleration,oraggravationofanydisease, #% infirmity,orcondition,previouslyorsubsequentlyexisting,byreasonofsuchdamageorharm. %x'  Physicalimpairmentwasnotdefined,norwereanyoftheotherlistedcategoriesofdamages. ' )   Jacksondoesnotchallengethejurysfindingsregardingmedicalcareandlossofpast (!+ earnings.Thejuryawardedthefullamountsherequestedinthosecategories.Itisthenoneconomic 0*(#- damagesthatareatissue.Thecourtofappealsaddressedonlythejurysfailuretoawarddamages  for Physicalimpairmentotherthanlossofvision.Thecourtofappealsconcludedthatthefailure  toawarddamagesinthiscategorywasagainstthegreatweightandpreponderanceoftheevidence (  because Jacksonsustainedmultiplefracturestohisface;fourofthesevenbonesthatmakeupthe   orbitoftheeyewerefractured....[H]esustainedarupturedsinusandabrokennose....[H]e H @ remained[inthehospital]fortendays....Thirtysevendayselapsedfromthedateoftheaccident   ...untiltheinjuriestohisfacewererepaired,andhehadheadachesupuntilthetimeoftrial. i#  13      ׀ h`    JacksonsargumentsinthisCourtfocusmoredirectlyonthe lossofenjoymentoflifehe   sufferedwhilehospitalizedandrecuperating.Specifically,Jacksonsbriefsays:   8    Theinjuryto[Jacksons]orbitalarea,noseandsinusesresultedinhis  hospitalizationfortendaysimmediatelyfollowingtheaccidentandthenforanother  threedaysforsurgerytorepairthebrokenorbitalbones,noseandrupturedsinus.  Theseobjectiveinjuriesdidnotallow[Jackson]toenjoyanyofhisnormallife ph activitiesduringthetimeofhishospitalizations.Moreover,thepainmedication 80 prescribedforJacksonkepthim zombiedoutmostofthetimebetweenthefirstand  secondhospitalizations.Thenormallifeactivitiesimpairedbytheseinjuriesinclude  enjoymentofhomelifeactivitywithfamily,socializingwithfriendssuchashewas  doingwhenhewasinjured,enjoyingthebowwhichhehadlookedforwardtohaving XP andthebowhuntingseasonwhichhewaswantingtodoandhadbroughtonthe   desireforthebowinthefirstplace....Thedisabilityof[Jackson]wasobviousform  [sic]theinjuriesthemselvesanddidnotrequireJacksontoproduceevidencetoshow  thetasksthathecouldnotdoduringtheperiodsofhishospitalizationsandthetime xp inbetweenthehospitalstays....Apersonthatishospitalizedwithtraumatic @8 injuriescannotengage(atleastforthetimeofhospitalization)inhisorhernormal    lifeactivitiesoutsideofworkandconsequentlysufferslossofphysicalimpairment  ! [sic].6 i#  14      1?!"     Inreviewingtherecordevidence,thecourtofappealsgenerallyfocusedonphysicalinjuries (# $ whileJacksonfocusesonwhataresometimescalled hedonicdamages. i#  15      ׀Ourfirstinquiryisto $& determinewhethertheevidencerecountedbythecourtofappealsandrelieduponbyJackson H&@( pertainsto physicalimpairmentotherthanlossofvision,tosomeothercategoryofdamagethat  wassubmittedtothejury,orboth.Forthereasonsweconsiderbelow,weconcludethatthis  evidencepertainstomorethanoneofthecategoriesthatweresubmitted,particularlyinlightofthe (  factthatneither physicalimpairmentnoranyoftheotherdamageelementsweredefined.Our   secondinquiryishowafactualsufficiencyreviewshouldbeconductedgiventhatoverlapping H @ elementsofdamagesweresubmittedandthejurywasinstructednottoawarddamagesforthesame   lossmorethanonce. h`  @ww) & @ III      Whensomeonesufferspersonalinjuries,thedamagesfallwithintwobroadcategories!   economicandnoneconomicdamages.Traditionally,economicdamagesarethosethatcompensate  '@6Kaninjuredpartyforlostwages,lostearningcapacity,andmedicalexpenses.Noneconomicdamages  includecompensationforpain,suffering,mentalanguish,anddisfigurement. Hedonicdamages 80 areanothertypeofnoneconomicdamagesandcompensateforlossofenjoymentoflife. i#  16          ThisCourthasneverconsideredthehistoricaloriginsoftheterm physicalimpairmentor XP itsparametersinanydetail.ButTexascourts,includingthisone,havelongrecognizedthat   physicalimpairmentorsimilarconceptscouldencompassbotheconomicandnoneconomic xp damages.f i#  17      ׀EarlyTexasdecisionsseemedtorecognizethatwhileaninjuredpartywasentitledto    afullrecovery,careshouldbetakentopreventadoublerecoverywheninstructionsaregiventoa !" jury.Courtsofappealshavebeenconsciousoftheseconcerns.InRobinsonv.Minick,thecourt  observed, [t]heintermediateappellatecourtshaveshownextremecautioninreviewingclaimsfor  physicalimpairmentbecauseofjustifiedconcerntopreventadoublerecovery. i#  18      ׀Thatsamecourt (  lamented, [o]urreviewofthisdifficultareaofthelawishamperedbytheabsenceofsupremecourt   authority. i#  19       H @   TheonlyguidanceourCourthasgivensinceourearlydecisionswasinEstradav.Dillon.J i#  20      ׀   Thereweconsideredwhetheracourtofappealshadproperlyconductedafactualsufficiencyreview h`  ofevidenceofdamagesduetophysicalimpairment. i#  21      ׀Thejuryhadawardeddamagesforpast   physicalpainandmentalanguish,pastlossofearnings,andpastmedicalcare.Thejurydidnot   awardanydamagesforfuturephysicalpainandmentalanguish,futuremedicalcare,futurelossof  earningcapacity,pastorfuturephysicalimpairment,orpastorfuturedisfigurement.& i#  22      ׀Thecourtof  appealsreversedthetrialcourtsjudgmentandremandedthecase,concludingthatthefailureto 80 awardanydamagesforpastphysicalimpairmentrequiredanewtrial. i#  23      ׀Thecourtofappealsdidnot  reachtheplaintiffscontentionthatthefailuretoawarddamagesforotherelementsalsorequired XP reversal.  i#  24      ׀Wefoundnoerrorinthefactualsufficiencyreview,butwedidholdthatthecourtof  appealserredinremandingforanewtrialsolelyondamages.  i#  25      ׀Wedidnotanalyzeinanydetailthe xp historyofphysicalimpairment,butinsteadfocusedonwhetherajurymustawarddamagesforpast  physicalimpairmentiftherewasobjectiveevidenceofaninjury. i#  26      ׀We assumedthatthe  defendantsdefinitionofphysicalimpairmentwascorrect.Wesaid: Assumingthat[the (  defendants]arecorrectthatevidenceofphysicalimpairmentmustfocusonrestrictionofactivities   causedbytheinjury,thecourtofappealsanalysisinthiscaseisnotinconsistentwiththatfocus. H @ Thecourtofappealsdidnotholdthatproofofobjectiveinjuryaloneestablishesphysical   impairment.6 i#  27      ׀Today,weexaminemorecarefullywhatevidencerelatestophysicalimpairment, h`  thepotentialfordoublerecovery,andhowafactualsufficiencyreviewshouldbeconducted.     Thecourtsofappealshaverecognizedthatphysicalimpairmentcanencompasseconomic   aswellasnoneconomicdamages. i#  28      ׀Anumberofthosecourtshaveattemptedtoseparatephysical  impairmentfromeconomicdamagesbydefiningphysicalimpairmenttoexcludeanyimpediment  toearningcapacityandalsotoseparatephysicalimpairmentfromthenoneconomicdamagesofpain 80 andsuffering.Overthelastthirtyyears,anumberofcourtsofappealshavesaid,  i#  29      ׀asthecourtof  appealsinthecasebeforeustodaysaid,that [t]orecoverdamagesforphysicalimpairment,a  plaintiffmustprovethattheeffectofhisphysicalimpairmentextendsbeyondanyimpedimentto  hisearningcapacityandbeyondanypainandsufferingtotheextentthatitproducesaseparateand (  distinctlossthatissubstantialandforwhichheshouldbecompensated.t i#  30           Thegenesisofthisdefinitionof physicalimpairmentisnotentirelyclear.Andthecourts H @ ofappealshavenotbeenentirelycongruentinapplyingthattermtoparticularfacts.Mostofthe   Texascasesthathaveaddressedphysicalimpairmenthaveconcludedeitherexplicitlyorimplicitly h`  thattheinjurymustbepermanentandaffectphysicalactivities. i#  31      ׀Therearesomedecisions,though,   thatseemtohaveconcludedthattemporaryinjuriescangiverisetophysicalimpairment. i#  32      ׀In   Estradav.Dillon,thisCourtseemstohaveagreedwithacourtofappealsthatevidenceoftemporary  injuriescouldamounttoevidenceagainstthegreatweightandpreponderancewhenajuryfailedto  awardanydamagesforpastphysicalimpairment. i#  33          Thecourtsofappealsareinfargreaterdisagreement,however,onwhether physical (  impairmentencompasseshedonicdamages,thatis,the lossofenjoymentoflife.Therearethree   possibilities.Lossofenjoymentoflifecouldbeencompassedentirelyby physicalimpairment, H @ notencompassedinthattermatall,orspillacrossphysicalimpairmentaswellasothercategories   ofdamage.OtherthanthisCourtsearly,tangentialruminationsinInternational&G.N.Railway h`  Co.v.Butcher,6 i#  34      ׀mentionedabove,wehaveneverdecidedwhetherlossofenjoymentoflifecanbe   anelementofrecovery.     Averyearlycourtofappealsdecision,Lockev.International&G.N.R.Co.,indicatedthere  couldbenorecoveryforlossofenjoymentoflife. i#  35      ׀Itheldthattherewasnoerrorinexcluding  testimonyabout lossofcapacityfortheenjoymentofpleasuresoflifebecausetheconceptwas 80  toovaguetofurnishanyinformationuponadefinitesubjectuponwhichdamageswouldariseor  beallowed. i#  36      ׀WehavefoundnoothercourtofappealsdecisioninTexasthatascribestothisview. XP   Subsequently,acourtofappealsrecognizedthattheinabilitytohaveanormallifeis  compensable.InDr.PepperBottlingCo.v.Rainboldt, i#  37      ׀adeliverytruckstruckayounggirl.The xp defendantarguedonappealthatthetrialcourtallowedadoublerecoverybecause physicalpainand     anguishareinvolvedinbodilyimpairment. i#  38      ׀Thecourtofappealsrejectedthatargument,pointing !" outthatthetrialcourthaddefinedbodilyimpairmentas thelossorinjuryofamember. i#  39      ׀The   courtexplainedthattherewas,ofcourse,painincidenttosuchaloss,butthatitwasseparate.6 i#  40      ׀The  courtcontinued: (  8  Toillustrate,amanmightlosehisleg;thatwouldbeabodilyimpairment.In   connectionwiththelossoftheleg,hemightsufferatthesametimepainand  x anguish.Thewoundmighthealandthepainandanguishdisappear,butthebodily H @ impairment,towit,thelossoftheleg,wouldremain.Theevidence[inDr.Pepper]   supportstheelementofbodilyimpairment.Herbladderispermanentlyinjured.She   willnotbeabletobearchildren.Herinjuriesarepermanent. i#  41          lsUnderthisreasoning,recoveryforlossofamembercouldincludethementalanguishfortheloss 0(  ofbodilyfunctions,separateandapartfromthepainandanguishexperiencedduringrecuperation,   andcouldalsoincludethelossoftheabilitytohave,nurture,andenjoychildren. PH    OtherTexascourtsofappealsopinionsthathaveconsideredlossofenjoymentoflifehave  agreedonatleasttwothings.First,afactfindershouldbefreetocompensateaninjuredpartywho ph isphysicallyimpairedtotheextentthatpartymaynolongerengageinorenjoyactivitiesthatheor  shewasabletodobeforetheinjury.Second,Texascourtsofappealshaveuniformlyheldthatloss  ofenjoymentoflifeisnotaseparatecategoryofdamage, i#  42      ׀whichisinaccordwithanumberofother   jurisdictions. i#  43      ׀Beyondthis,thecourtsofappealsdecisionsdiverge.    TheTexarkanacourtofappealssaidinMissouriPacificRailroadCo.v.Lanethat [l]oss  ofenjoymentoflifemaynotbeclaimedasaseparateelementofdamages,butmaybetreatedasa  factorindeterminingthedamagesingeneralorthoseforpainandsuffering. i#  44      ׀Itreiteratedthisview (  inFibreboardCorp.v.Pool.. i#  45      ׀TheCorpusChristicourtofappealsinSpohnHospitalv.Mayer   seemedtoagreewithLaneandFibreboard,concludingthat [e]videnceofalossofenjoymentof H @ lifemaybeconsideredindeterminingdamagesingeneralorforpainandsuffering.B  i#  46      ׀However,the   TylercourtofappealsanalysesdonotagreeentirelywiththeTexarkanaandCorpusChristicourts. h`  InBrookshireBrothers,Inc.v.Wagnon,theTylercourtsuggestedthat certainlythelossof   enjoymentoflife,whichencompassesthelossoftheinjuredpartysformerlifestyle,maybe   consideredwhendeterminingmentalanguishdamages.  i#  47      ׀InWalMartStores,Inc.v.Holland,that  courtsaidthat physicalimpairment,sometimestermedlossofenjoymentoflife,encompassesthe  lossoftheinjuredpartysformerlifestyle.  i#  48      ׀TheFourteenthDistrictcourtofappealsinHouston 80 seemstohaveagreedwiththelatterviewoftheTylercourt,holdingthat [p]hysicalimpairment,   sometimescalledlossofenjoymentoflife,encompassesthelossoftheinjuredpartysformer XP lifestyle. i#  49      ׀AdissentingopinionintheSanAntoniocourtofappealscontendedthatlossof   enjoymentoflifeshouldbecategorizedaspartofmentalanguishdamages. i#  50      ׀Thus,lossof  enjoymentoflifehasvariouslybeencategorizedasanelementofpainandsuffering,mentalanguish, (  orphysicalimpairment.     Thedivergenceofviewsisunderstandable.Courtsacrossthecountryhavestruggledwith H @ whetherlossofenjoymentoflifeiscompensableatall,andifso,whetheritispartofpainand   suffering,mentalanguish,orphysicalimpairment,orisaseparate,independentcategoryof h`  damages. i#  51      ׀And,asindicatedabove,thereisalogicalnexisbetweenlossofenjoymentoflifeand   eachofthecategoriesofnoneconomicdamagesrecognizedinTexas"pain,suffering,mental  anguish,disfigurement,andphysicalimpairment.    ThewidelydisparateviewsofcourtsinTexasandacrossthecountryleadustoconcludethat (  inthecasebeforeustoday,thecourtofappealsshouldnothaveappliedthedefinitionof physical   impairmentsofrequentlyquotedbyTexascourtsofappealsinconsideringthefactualsufficiency H @ oftheevidence. i#  52      ׀Thecourtofappealssaid, [t]orecoverdamagesforphysicalimpairment,a   plaintiffmustprovethattheeffectofhisphysicalimpairmentextendsbeyondanyimpedimentto h`  hisearningcapacityandbeyondanypainandsufferingtotheextentthatitproducesaseparateand   distinctlossthatissubstantialandforwhichheshouldbecompensated.< i#  53           First,thatdefinitiondoesnotfullyeliminatetheoverlapamongphysicalimpairment,pain,  suffering,mentalanguish,anddisfigurement.Nordoesitgiveadequateguidanceaboutwhetherthe  impairmentmustbetheresultofapermanentinjury.Second,andmoreimportantly,thatdefinition 80 wasnotgiventothejuryinthiscase.Ifcourtsacrossthecountrycanrationallyconcludethatloss  ofenjoymentoflifecanbepartofpainandsufferingormentalanguishordisfigurementorphysical XP impairment,thensocanajury.ThejuryinthiscasecouldhavecompensatedJacksonforlossof  enjoymentoflifeaspartofphysicalpainandmentalanguish,ordisfigurement,ordivided xp compensationinsomemannerbetweenthetwocategories.Thejurychargepermittedthejuryto     makeitsowndeterminationofhowtocategorizeandcompensatethelossessufferedbyJackson. !"   Thejurysubmissioninthiscasecomportswithapracticesuggestedbysomecourtsof   appeals.Insteadofdefiningdamagecategoriesforjuriesinsuchawaythattheydonotoverlap,  whichwerecognizemaynotbefeasibleforsomedamageelements,somecourtsofappealshave (  concludedthattoavoiddoubleawardsofdamages,particularlywhenphysicalimpairmentis   submitted,juriesshouldbedirectlyinstructednottoawardoverlappingdamages. i#  54      ׀Thedecisionin H @ Frenchv.Grigsbyt i#  55      ׀approvedsuchaninstructioninaffirmingthetrialcourtsjudgmentawarding   damagesforphysicalimpairment: h`  8  Inansweringthisspecialissueyoushallnotawardanysumofmoneyonanyelement   ifyouhaveotherwise,undersomeotherelement,awardedasumofmoneyforthe   sameloss,thatis,donotcompensatetwiceforthesameloss,ifany. i#  56            Thistypeofinstructioninformsthejurythatitisnottomakeaduplicativeawardof  damages.Inthisregard,wenotethatthetrialcourtinthecasebeforeustodayfollowedtheState  BarofTexasPatternJuryChargetosomeextent,P i#  57      ׀whichuseslanguagedifferentfromthe 80 instructioninFrench.Thetrialcourtschargesaid: Considertheelementsofdamageslistedbelow  andnoneother.Considereachelementseparately.Donotincludedamagesforoneelementinany XP otherelement.TheinstructioninFrenchisclearer.    Giventhatsomeofthecategoriesofdamagessubmittedtothejuryinthiscasewerenot xp  definedandthereforewerenotcleanlyandclearlysegregatedfromoneanother,thequestion,then,    ishowshouldthecourtofappealsreviewthefactualsufficiencyoftheevidencesupportingthe  jurysawardforphysicalimpairment.Itistothatquestionthatwenowturn.   @}}) & @ IV    (    Thechargeinthiscasepermittedthejurytoawardseparateamountsofdamagesinsix   differentcategories.Thestandardofreviewtodeterminefactualsufficiencyoftheevidencethatwe H @ '@( 4setforthtodaydiffersfromthestandardofreviewthatisappliedwhenthejuryisaskedtoawarda   singleamountofdamages,butistoldthatitmayconsidervariouselementsinarrivingatthat h`  amount. i#  58      ׀Inthelattercircumstance,wehaveheldthatachallengemustaddressalltheelementsthat   couldhavebeenconsideredbythejuryinmakingitstotal,singleamountaward. i#  59      ׀ Ifthereisjust   oneelementthatissupportedbytheevidence,thedamagesawardwillbeaffirmedifitissupported  bytheevidence. i#  60          Inthecasebeforeus,thejuryhadsixblankstofillandwasinstructednottoawarddamages 80 forthesameelementmorethanonce.Unlesstherecorddemonstratesotherwise,anappellatecourt  mustpresumethatthejuryfollowedtheseinstructions.^ i#  61      ׀Inconductingitsfactualsufficiencyreview, XP thecourtofappealsshouldpresumethatthejurydidnotawarddamagestoJacksonforanyelement  morethanonce,unlesstherecorddemonstratesotherwise.Accordingly,inreviewingtheevidence, xp thecourtofappealsshouldconsiderwhetherthejurycouldreasonablyhavecompensatedJackson     foraparticularlossthatmightbe physicalimpairmentotherthanlossofvisionunderanother !" categoryofdamages.Ifthejurycouldhavedoneso,thenthefailuretoawarddamagesforthat  particularlosswouldnotbeagainstthegreatweightandpreponderanceoftheevidence.     Thecourtofappealsshouldfirstconsiderwhatevidenceisuniqueto physicalimpairment (  otherthanlossofvision.Inthisregard,thebonefractures,rupturedsinus,andbrokennose   sustainedbyJacksonarethetypicaltypeofphysicalinjuryforwhichajurycouldreasonably H @ compensateaninjuredpartythroughanawardforphysicalpainandmentalanguish.Evidenceof   Jacksonsheadachescouldalsologicallyfalleitherwithin physicalimpairmentotherthanlossof h`  vision,forwhichthejuryawardednodamages,orwithinpastandfuturephysicalpainandmental   anguish,forwhichthejurydidawarddamages.     TheevidenceregardingJacksonshospitalconfinementsandhisallegedlossofenjoyment  oflifeforthetwomonthshewasrecuperatingpresentamorecomplexquestion.Anumberof  decisionsinotherjurisdictionsindicatethatlossofenjoymentofliferesultsfrompermanentrather 80 thantemporaryinjuries, i#  62      ׀althoughafewdecisionsindicateotherwise. i#  63      ׀Particularlyinlightofthe  availabilityofdamagesinothercategories,suchaspain,suffering,andmentalanguishto  compensateforatemporaryinabilitytoenjoylifesactivities,ajurycouldreasonablyconcludethat  hedonicdamagesshouldbeawardedonlyforpermanentinjuries.Totheextentthatourdecisionin (  Estradav.Dillon i#  64      ׀couldbereadtoholdotherwise,wedidnotfocusonthatspecificissue,aswe   nowhavedone.AstheSupremeCourtofMichiganhasobserved, thepangsofseparationfrom H @ familyduringhospitalizationmaybetakenintoaccountasapartoftheinjuredpersonsmental   suffering.6 i#  65      ׀TheSupremeCourtofAlaskahasalsocategorized asubstantialamountoftime h`  convalescinginthehospitalasevidenceofpainandsuffering. i#  66      ׀Butwhethertoawarddamagesand   howmuchisuniquelywithinthefactfindersdiscretion.     Wearepersuadedthatinthepropercase,whentheevidencesupportssuchasubmission,loss  ofenjoymentoflifefitsbestamongthefactorsafactfindermayconsiderinassessingdamagesfor  physicalimpairment.Indeed,ifotherelementssuchaspain,suffering,mentalanguish,and 80 disfigurementaresubmitted,thereislittleleftforwhichtocompensateunderthecategoryof  physicalimpairmentotherthanlossofenjoymentoflife.Accordingly,if physicalimpairmentis XP definedforajury,itwouldbeappropriatetoadvisethejurythatitmayconsiderasafactorlossof  enjoymentoflife.Butthejuryshouldbeinstructedthattheeffectofanyphysicalimpairmentmust xp besubstantialandextendbeyondanypain,suffering,mentalanguish,lostwagesordiminished    earningcapacityandthataclaimantshouldnotbecompensatedmorethanonceforthesame !" elementsoflossorinjury. (# $   Inthecasebeforeustoday,nodefinitionof physicalimpairmentwasgivenorrequested. $& Withoutanydefinitiontoguideit,thejurycouldhaveconcludedthatJacksonstemporaryinjuries H&@( resultedincompensablelossofenjoymentoflife.However,thejurycouldreasonablyhavedecided  tocompensateJacksonforthetimehespenthospitalizedandrecuperating,duringwhichhewas  unabletoenjoyrecreationalactivities,underthecategoryofphysicalpainandmentalanguish.Or, (  thejurycouldhavedecidedthatJacksonshouldnotrecoveranyhedonicdamagesforhistemporary   injuries.Ifacourtofappealsweretobaseitsdecisiononthesufficiencyoftheevidencetosupport H @ thejurysfailuretoawarddamagesforonecategoryofdamages(oritsfailuretoawardlarger   damages)onevidencethatthejurycouldhavecreditedinmakinganawardforotherdamage h`  elements,thenthecourtofappealswouldbesubstitutingitsjudgmentforthatofthejuryin   evaluatinginwhichcategory,ifany,theinjuredpartyshouldhavebeencompensated.Acourtof   appealsshouldthereforeconfineitsreviewtoevidence,ifany,thatisuniquetothechallenged  category.Ifthejurysfailuretoawarddamagesortheamountofdamagesawardedissoagainstthe  greatweightandpreponderanceoftheevidenceastobemanifestlyunjust,shocktheconscience,or 80 clearlydemonstratebias,thenanewtrialwouldberequired.    Ifonlyonecategoryofthejurysawardischallenged,andtheawardinthatcategoryisnot XP againstthegreatweightandpreponderanceoftheevidenceuniquetoit,thecourtsinquiryshould  endthere.Acourtshouldnotconsiderlossesorinjuriesforwhichthejurycouldhavecompensated xp theinjuredpartyunderadifferentcategoryunlessafactualsufficiencychallengeismadetoall    overlappingcategoriesofdamages.Otherwise,aninjuredpartycouldreceiveanadequateawardfor !" allinjuriesandlossessustainedwhenajurychoosestocompensateforinjuriesorlossesinthe (# $ categoriesofpain,sufferingormentalanguish,ratherthanphysicalimpairment,andtheinjured $& partywouldstillgetanewtrialbychallengingonlythejurysawardunderphysicalimpairment. H&@(   Inthiscase,Jacksonhaschallengedthefactualsufficiencyofthejurysfailuretoaward ' * largerdamagesinthecategoriesofphysicalpainandmentalanguish,physicalimpairmentofloss h)`", ofvision,anddisfigurement,aswellastheawardofnodamagesfor physicalimpairmentotherthan *#. lossofvision.Thecourtofappealsshouldconductareviewofeachofthesecategories, ,%0 consideringtheevidenceuniquetoeachcategory.If,afterconsideringevidenceuniquetoa  category,thecourtconcludesthatthejurysfailuretoawardlargerdamagesforthatcategoryis  againstthegreatweightandpreponderanceoftheevidence,itshouldthenconsiderallthe (  overlappingevidence,togetherwiththeevidenceuniquetoeachothercategorytodetermineifthe   totalamountawardedintheoverlappingcategoriesisfactuallysufficient.Thistakesintoaccount H @ alltheevidenceregardingdamagesincategoriesthatoverlap,butdoesnotcreditthatevidencemore   thanonceinevaluatingtheamountawardedbythejury. h`    Thenecessarycorollarytotheseprinciplesisthatinreviewingachallengethatanawardfor   acategoryisexcessivebecausethereisfactuallyinsufficientevidencetosupportit,acourtof   appealsshouldconsideralltheevidencethatbearsonthatcategoryofdamages,eveniftheevidence  alsorelatestoanothercategoryofdamages.Todootherwisewouldmeanthatevidencethat  reasonablycouldhavesupportedthejurysawardwouldnotbeconsidered,whichwouldbe 80 improper.Ifmorethanoneawardinoverlappingcategoriesischallengedasexcessive,thecourt  ofappealsshouldconsideralltheevidencethatrelatestothetotalamountawardedinalloverlapping XP categoriestodetermineifthetotalamountawardedwasexcessive.Thislikewisegivesfulleffect  toalltheevidencewithoutcreditinganyoftheevidencemorethanonce. xp   GoldenEaglecontendsthatthecourtofappealsconcludedthatthejurywasrequiredto    awarddamagesfor physicalimpairmentotherthanlossofvisionsolelyonthebasisthattherewas !" objectiveevidenceofphysicalinjury.Inthisregardthecourtofappealssaidthatitfoundthe (# $ decisioninRobinsonv.Minick i#  67      ׀ instructive.6 i#  68      ׀TheinjuredpartyinRobinsonhadfacialfractures, $& surgery,andspentamonthinthehospital.ThecourtinRobinsonheldthat whenweapplysettled H&@( lawthatrequiresajurytoawardsomethingforeveryelementofdamageproven,totheundisputed, ' * objectiveevidenceofseverephysicalimpairmentinthepast,wecannotescapetheconclusionthat  thejurysfindingof$0isagainstthegreatweightandpreponderanceoftheevidence. i#  69      ׀Similarly,  thecourtofappealsinthiscaseheldthat [t]hereisnothingsubjectiveorconflictingaboutthe (  evidenceofthebrokenbonesaround[Jacksons]eye,thebrokennose,orrupturedsinusandthat   these injuriesaredemonstrativeofimpairmentbeyondpainandsuffering,lossofearningcapacity, H @ andlossofvision.6 i#  70      ׀     Inkeepingwiththeprinciplesthatacourtmaynotsubstituteitsjudgmentforthatofthejury h`  andthatthejuryisthesolejudgeoftheweightandcredibilityoftestimony,courtsshouldnot   concludethatajurysfailuretoawardanydamagesforphysicalimpairmentisagainstthegreat   weightandpreponderanceoftheevidencesimplybecausethereisobjectiveevidenceofaninjury.  ThecourtsofappealsinLandacrev.ArmstrongBuildingMaintenanceCo. i#  71      ׀andPlattv.Fregia i#  72        bothconcludedthatajurysfailuretoawarddamagesforphysicalimpairmentwasnotagainstthe 80 greatweightandpreponderanceoftheevidenceeventhoughtheplaintiffsinthosecaseshadsome  permanentfunctionallossofapartoftheirbody.InLandacre,theplaintiffhadafrozenshoulder XP andhernormalrangeofmotiondecreasedto50%.InPlatt,theplaintifflost30%functioninhis  knee.Thejuryineachcasehadawardedamountsinothercategoriesofnoneconomicdamages. xp ThecourtinLandacreconcludedthat [t]hedeterminationthattheappellanthasnotandwillnot    sufferphysicalimpairmentapartfromthatalreadycompensatedforisuniquelywithinthejurys !" province. i#  73      ׀ (# $   Similarly,inPilkingtonv.Kornell,thecourtofappealsconcludedthatwhenajuryis  presentedwithconflictingevidenceabouttheexistenceandseverityofaphysicalinjuryand  associatedpain,thejury couldbelievealloranypartofthetestimonyofanywitnessanddisregard (  alloranypartofthetestimonyofanywitness. i#  74      ׀Thecourtupheldajurysfailuretoawardany   damagesforpainandsuffering.6 i#  75      ׀Thisdoesnotmean,however,thataverdictawardingnodamages H @ forpainandsufferingshouldbeupheldonappealifthereisobjective,undisputedevidenceofa   significantinjuryandthejurycouldnothavecompensatedtheinjuredpartyinsomeothercategory h`  ofdamages.     InMonroev.Grider, i#  76      ׀thecourtofappealsproperlydrewadistinctionbetweenajurys   failuretoawarddamagesforpainandsufferingwhentherewasobjective,undisputedevidenceof  injuryandthejurysfailuretoawarddamagesformentalanguish.Inthatcase,thetrialcourthad  submittedphysicalpainandmentalanguishinoneissue.Thejuryfailedtoawardanydamagesin 80 thatcategory,althoughtheplaintiffhadafracturedwristandasprainedmuscleinhergrointhat   temporarilypreventedherfromworkingandfullyenjoyingrecreationalactivities. i#  77      ׀Thecourtof XP appealsheld, [u]ncontrovertedevidenceofanobjectiveinjurydoesnotalwaysrequiremental  anguishdamages,butthejurycouldnotignoreuncontrovertedevidenceofinjuryindenyingany xp  recoveryforpastphysicalpain.r i#  78            Tosummarizethefactualsufficiencystandardofreviewthatweadopttoday,whenonlyone   categoryofdamagesischallengedonthebasisthattheawardinthatcategorywaszeroorwastoo  low,acourtshouldconsideronlywhethertheevidenceuniquetothatcategoryissoagainstthegreat (  weightandpreponderanceoftheevidenceastobemanifestlyunjust,shocktheconscience,orclearly   demonstratebias.When,asinthiscase,thejurysfailuretofindgreaterdamagesinmorethanone H @ overlappingcategoryischallenged,thecourtofappealsshouldfirstdetermineiftheevidenceunique   toeachcategoryisfactuallysufficient.Ifitisnot,thecourtofappealsshouldthenconsiderallthe h`  overlappingevidence,togetherwiththeevidenceuniquetoeachcategory,todetermineifthetotal   amountawardedintheoverlappingcategoriesisfactuallysufficient.     Thisstandardofreviewgivesdueregardtoajuryschoiceofwhetherandhowtocategorize  andcompensateforspecificlossesorinjuriesthatcouldreasonablyfallintomorethanonecategory  ofdamages.Italsoadvancestheprinciplesthatatortvictimshouldbefullyandfairlycompensated, 80 butthatadoublerecoveryshouldbeavoided.    Additionally,inreviewingajurysfailuretoawardanydamages,courtsofappealsshould XP applytheprinciplesarticulatedinPoolv.FordMotorCo. i#  79      ׀Inthiscase,thecourtofappealsdidnot  detailtheevidencethatsupportedthejurysfailuretoawardanydamagesforphysicalimpairment xp otherthanlossofvisionorstateinwhatregardthecontraryevidencegreatlyoutweighedthe    evidenceinsupportoftheverdict,asourdecisioninPoolrequires. !" @* & @ V  (# $   Finally,weconsiderGoldenEaglescontentionthatthetrialcourterredinsubmittingboth $&  physicalimpairmentoflossofvisionand physicalimpairmentotherthanlossofvisionas H&@(  '@^%separateitemsofdamage.GoldenEaglearguesthatsubmittingtheseelementsviolatedTexasRule ' * ofCivilProcedure277.WeneednotdecidewhetherGoldenEaglepreservedthiscomplaintfor  appealbecauseweconcludethattherewasnoreversibleerrorinthesubmission.     Rule277providesthat [i]nalljurycasesthecourtshall,wheneverfeasible,submitthecause (  uponbroadformquestions. i#  80      ׀Althoughthetrialcourtgranulatedphysicalimpairmentintotwo   separatecategories,GoldenEagledidnotexplainhowitwasharmedbythissubmission,particularly H @ inlightofthejurysawardof $0forphysicalimpairmentotherthanlossofvision.   @&**** h`    Wereversethejudgmentofthecourtofappealsandremandthiscasetothatcourtforfurther   proceedings.     0  0  (# (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#___________________________(#(#   0  0  (# (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#PriscillaR.Owenph(#(#   0  0  (# (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#Justice80(#(#   0  0  (# (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(# (#(# OPINIONDELIVERED:September11,2003   j