The Texas Supreme Court Recently held in In re DuPont de Nemours and Co., Tex., No. 08-0625 (7/3/09), that whenever a trial court sets aside a jury verdict and grants a new trial, it must explain its reasons for doing so. (Click on "Download PDF" to view a copy of the Court’s three-page opinion).

Prior to this decision, a Texas trial court could simply set aside a jury verdict without any explanation beyond “in the interest of justice and fairness.” The In re DuPont case was decided at the same time, on the same grounds and even references a medical malpractice case entitled, In re Columbia Medical Center of Las Colinas, ___ S.W.3d ___ (Tex. 2009). (Click on "Download PDF" to view a copy of the decision, which follows the Supreme Court’s opinion reference above).

The plaintiff’s estate in In re DuPont brought a wrongful death action against defendant DuPont alleging that the decedent was occupationally exposed to asbestos as an employee of DuPont and while working at a DuPont plant. As a result of the alleged exposure to asbestos at DuPont, the decedent developed mesothelioma and later passed away.

After a five-week trial, the jury found that DuPont was not liable to the plaintiff and entered judgment for the company defendant. Plaintiff immediately moved for a new trial on the basis that the verdict was contrary to the evidence presented in the case. The trial judge, without giving any reasons, granted plaintiff’s motion for a new trial. DuPont moved for mandamus from the Texas Court of Appeals, which was denied. DuPont then appealed to the Texas Supreme Court.

The In re DuPont court did not provide a detailed explanation of its reasoning. Instead, the Court referred to the In re Columbia decision, which was decided on the same grounds. The Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 320, addresses new trials as follows: “New trials may be granted and judgment set aside for good cause, on motion or on the court’s own motion on such terms as the court shall direct. New trials may be granted when the damages are manifestly too small or too large.”

Texas law holds that if an appellate court finds that the verdict is not supported by factually sufficient evidence, and therefore sets aside the verdict, the appellate court must detail all of the relevant evidence and explain how it outweighs the jury verdict. There is no such requirement for the trial court beyond the “in the interest of justice and fairness” standard.  The Texas Supreme Court carefully pointed out, however, that “there is no meaningful difference to the parties between an appellate reversal and a trial court decision to set aside a verdict”.

The Texas Supreme Court took special note that there are 40 other states, including the District of Columbia, which require the trial court to specify the reasons for setting aside jury verdicts. Moreover, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(d) requires that the trial court, in granting a new trial, must specify the reasons in its order. The Fifth Circuit held that the discretion given to the trial court in granting a new trial is not “impenetrable” and that “careful scrutiny given to orders granting new trials is intended to assure that the court does not simply substitute [its] judgment for that of the jury, thus depriving the litigants of their right to trial by jury.” Scott v. Monsanto Co., 868 F.2d 786, 791 (5th Cir. 1989).

The Texas Supreme Court, following the lead and rationale of those 40 other states, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Scott decision, held that when a Texas trial court sets aside a jury verdict, “the parties and the public are entitled to an understandable, reasonably specific explanation why their expectations are frustrated by a jury verdict being disregarded or set aside…The significance of the issue ― protection of the right to jury trial ― convinces us that the circumstances are exceptional.” The Court therefore directed the trial court in this case to specify the reasons why it ignored the jury verdict and further ordered a new trial.

In light of the Supreme Court’s decision, Texas trial court judges will now have to back up their reasons in writing for ignoring the jury and setting aside a jury verdict. Those days of allowing trial courts in Texas to set aside verdicts without any explanation, other than “in the interests of justice and fairness,” are now gone. It is predicted that as a result of the Supreme Court’s decision, there will be fewer moves by the trial courts in Texas to set aside jury verdicts due to the increased accountability on the reasons for doing so.

For further information, please contact Craig T. Liljestrand or your regular Hinshaw attorney. 

This alert has been prepared by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. It is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship.