by its contemporaneous negligent activity, directly and foreseeably causing Murillo’s injuries. But it did not. If it had done so, it would necessarily have concluded that the evidence was both legally and factually sufficient to support the jury’s findings regarding Oncor based on the negligence theory of liability submitted to it. B. Legal and Factual Sufficiency of the Evidence to Support the Jury’s Verdict 1. Standard of Review In reviewing the legal sufficiency of the evidence, we must, view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, crediting favorable evidence if reasonable jurors could and disregarding contrary evidence unless reasonable jurors could not. See City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802, 822 (Tex.2005); Tiller v. McLure, 121 S.W.3d 709, 713 (Tex.2003) (<HOLDING>). To sustain a challenge to the legal
holding that in reviewing no evidence point court views evidence in light that tends to support finding of disputed fact and disregards all evidence and inferences to contrary holding that in reviewing sufficiency of the evidence claims we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the government and draw all reasonable inferences and credibility choices in favor of the jurys verdict holding that there was no evidence or inferences to be drawn from the evidence to support the damage award holding that in reviewing whether there is sufficient evidence to support a conviction we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the government and draw all reasonable inferences and credibility choices in favor of the jurys verdict holding that in reviewing sufficiency of evidence in juvenile adjudication the appellate court considers the evidence most favorable to the judgment and the reasonable inferences drawn therefrom and affirms if those inferences constitute substantial evidence