75%(4)3 out of 4 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 1 - 2 out of 2 pages.
Julia Miller ISS 225 Fall 2016 Case Briefing: Lehmann v. Wieghat Tex. App.-Houston [14 Dist.], 1996. The plaintiff in this case is Richard E. Lehmann and the Defendant is Carlton L. Wieghat. In this case, the court relies on the facts of the original jury decisions, finding that the plaintiff did not qualify as a bystander and the whether their was factual dispute over the questions submitted to the Jury, and whether or not the evidence provided to the jury could support their answers to the questions submitted. The facts from the original case that provide background for the opinion are that the plaintiff Lehmann was a half a mile to a mile and a half away from the scene of the accident, that he heard the shot but that he did not know immediately that the shot was the one that injured his son Darrin, that there was a period of time (5-10 minutes) between when the accident occurred and when the defendant Wieghat pulled up and the plaintiff Lehmann saw his