WPC5 2~ ZBVXXN\  PXPa1DocumentDocument StyleF *  ׃  a2DocumentDocument Style*    a3DocumentDocument Style0     2Zpe epa4DocumentDocument Style . a5DocumentDocument Style   a6DocumentDocument Style   a7DocumentDocument Style ` ` ` 2p   Ha8DocumentDocument Style` ` ` a1TechnicalTechnical Document Style 4!     a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style *    a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style '    2/  'a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style &    a5TechnicalTechnical Document Style &  . a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style&  . a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style&  . 2 a  w  a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style&   . a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers8!"@   a2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersA#$@` `  ` ` ` a3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersJ%&@  ` `  2  K  a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersS'(@  a5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers\)*@hh# hhh a6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numberse+,@( hh# a7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersn-.@- ( 2T>a8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersw/0@pp2 -ppp     X0Í Í X0Í Í Roman 12ptRoman Courier 12pt'12#d6X@@#Op. DraftOpinion -- Draft34  (c#j\  P6;XPH#   3 1, 4 @&D R A F T` APage  _______________________________________________________ 2njItalic 12ptItalics Courier 12pt type'56'#x6NhH##x6NhH#BibliogrphyBibliography78 Doc InitInitialize Document Style9:    I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)DocumentҲTech InitInitialize Technical Style;< 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technical2H 3!"_PleadingHeader for numbered pleading paper=>   ,#j\  P6;XPH# X  y*dddyy*dddy H\1 H\2 H\3 H\4 H\5 H\6 H\7 H\8 H\9 H10 H11 H12 H13 H14 H15 H16 H17 H18 H19 H20 H21 H22 H23 H24 H25 H26 H27 H28   Home PtrSets codes for printing opinions on Sperry Laser Q?@ X #Xx6X@X@#  EnvelopeEnvelope!AB '3 II    Xp,  p,p, Letter 2Personal stationery with standard margins"bCD#XN\  PXP#   p,  3 1, 4 2#K$%p&pLetter 3Personal stationery with narrow margins#bEF#&R2P &P#     3 1, 4 Letter 1Court stationery$PGH#XZ2P XP# * 3 1, 4 ؃ Single Space% I J1Document Style&KL` ` ` 2!'q(e0 )e * 2Document Style'M N . 3Document Style( OP 4Document Style) QR 5Document Style**ST   2#+p!,/"-".\#6Document Style+UV` ` ` 7Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers,8WX@   8Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers-AYZ@` `  ` ` ` 9Document Style.0[ \    2&/#$0$1t%2*&10Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers/J]^@  ` `  11Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers0S_`@  12Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers1\ab@hh# hhh 13Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers2ecd@( hh# 2)3'4'5(6n)14Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers3nef@- ( 15Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers4wgh@pp2 -ppp 16Document Style5Fij *  ׃  17Technical Document Style6&kl  . 2o,7%*8*9F+:+18Technical Document Style7&mn  . 19Technical Document Style8*op    20Technical Document Style9'qr   21Technical Document Style:&st   25;,<Q-=-0[[.22Technical Document Style;4u$v     23Technical Document Style<&wx  . 24Technical Document Style=&yz  . īXN\  PXPx9 Z6Times New Roman RegularXA\  PPx9 Z6Times New Roman Regulard6X@@<6X9`("Courier NewTTj\  P6;XPH%\  `$Times New RomanXx6NhHH  9`(.Courier NewItalicTTx6NhHH  9`(.Courier NewItalicTTj\  P6;XPH%\  `$Times New RomanXXx6X@X@<6X9`("Courier NewTTXXN\  PXP% [  `*Times New RomanTTX&R2P &P7|A`$ArialTT&XZ2P XP& A`ArialTTX2553|x  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS ă & &No. 961137ă & WalMart Stores, Inc., d/b/a Sam's Wholesale Club and Allen Smith, Petitioners  *v.ă Carmen Deggs, Respondent   On Application for Writ of Error to the O Court of Appeals for the Ninth District of Texasă  _" Per Curiam Opinion ă When a party does not return answers to a request for admissions within thirty days, the matters in the request are deemed admitted against that party. Tex. R. Civ. P. 169. Here, the trial court directed a verdict against defendants WalMart and Allen Smith based on Smiths deemed admissions. The court of appeals affirmed the judgment against WalMart but reversed and remanded the judgment against Smith because the deemed admissions were insufficient to support Smiths personal liability. __ S.W.2d __. We hold that the trial court abused its discretion in not granting the defendants motion to withdraw the deemed admissions. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new trial.#A\  PP#эBecause we dispose of this case on these grounds, we do not reach the issue of whether Smiths deemed admissions conclusively established matters against WalMart. Carmen Deggs and a companion went to a Sams Wholesale Club store in December 1992. Because it had rained earlier in the day, store employees had placed a nonskid mat on the floor just inside the door. As Deggs entered the store, she caught her foot on a kink in the mat and fell. She received treatment at a hospital and was released that evening. In February 1993, Deggs sued WalMart, the owner of the Sams store, and Allen Smith, the store manager. WalMart timely answered but Smith did not. WalMart removed the suit to federal court but the federal judge remanded to state court. On July 29, 1994, as its second discovery request, Deggss counsel served Smith with a request for admissions, supplemental interrogatories, and supplemental requests for production. Smith had thirty days to answer the request for admissions. Deggs documented delivery of each item to Smith by a separate return receipt with a notation specifying the discovery request enclosed. Deggs alleges that she served copies of these items on WalMart as well. However, the single return receipt from the delivery to WalMart notes only that the packet contained material concerning Deggss case. WalMart contends that although it received the other two items, it did not receive a copy of Deggss request for admissions directed to Smith. Deggs maintains that all three items were in the packet that WalMart acknowledges receiving. Before the admissions were due, Deggs took Smiths deposition. However, Smith did not respond to the request for admissions, and the matters in the request were deemed admitted. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 169(1). On the day trial was to begin, Deggs filed a motion in limine requesting in part that the trial court preclude WalMart and Smith from introducing any evidence that contradicted the deemed admissions. That day, WalMarts counsel wrote to Deggss counsel that WalMart had not received a copy of the request for admissions directed to Smith and had not known of the request until Deggs filed her motion in limine. Immediately, WalMarts counsel assumed Smiths representation and filed an answer on Smiths behalf, a request for a continuance, and a motion to extend time to respond or, in the alternative, to withdraw the deemed admissions. The trial court denied the motion in its entirety and granted Deggss motion in limine precluding both WalMart and Smith from contradicting the admissions at trial. Smiths failure to respond admitted that WalMart employed him in a managerial capacity on the date Deggs was injured; the negligence of one or more WalMart employees acting in the course and scope of their employment proximately caused the incident; the rug or mat on which Deggs slipped was in an unreasonably dangerous condition and created an unreasonable risk of harm for store customers, and Smith and other employees knew this well in advance of Deggss fall; Deggs was seriously injured because of the incident; Deggs was not negligent in any way; and the incident was one hundred percent WalMarts fault. The request for admissions did not define the terms negligence, proximate cause, or fault. At trial, Deggss counsel read the deemed admissions to the jury and told the jury that these matters were conclusively established. After Deggss attorney read these admissions to the jury, he presented six witnesses. The trial court then denied WalMarts motion for a directed verdict, and WalMart presented its case, prohibited by the successful motion in limine from presenting evidence that contradicted Smiths deemed admissions. At the close of the case, the trial court granted Deggs a directed verdict, holding WalMart and Smith one hundred percent liable for Deggss injury. The trial court rejected the defendants proposed comparative negligence question, and the jury awarded Deggs $331,000 against WalMart and Smith, jointly and severally. The court of appeals affirmed the judgment against WalMart but reversed and remanded the judgment against Smith. The court of appeals held that the deemed admissions were insufficient to support Smiths personal liability but sufficient to support WalMarts respondeat superior liability based on the acts of its other employees. __ S.W.2d at __. The issue is whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to withdraw the deemed admissions. We hold that it did. A court may permit withdrawal or amendment of . . . deemed admissions upon a showing of good cause . . . if the court finds that the parties relying upon the reponses and deemed admissions will not be unduly prejudiced and that the presentation of the merits of the action will be subserved thereby. Tex. R. Civ. P. 169(2); Stelly v. Papania, 927 S.W.2d 620, 622 (Tex. 1996).  Good cause is established when the failure to respond is accidental or the result of a mistake, rather than intentional or the result of conscious indifference. Stelly, 927 S.W.2d at 622. By responding the day of the filing of the motion in limine, WalMart acted swiftly and diligently once alerted to Smiths failure to respond to Deggss request. ,X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8: