George Grubbs Enterprises, Inc. v. Bien
| Decision Date | 15 June 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 94-1052,94-1052 |
| Citation | 900 S.W.2d 337 |
| Parties | 38 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 869 GEORGE GRUBBS ENTERPRISES, INC. a/k/a George Grubbs Nissan, Inc., David Kielson and Luke Maturelli, Petitioners, v. Mitchel L. BIEN, Respondent. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
David E. Keltner, Fort Worth, Nina Cortell, Sharon N. Freytag, LaDawn H. Conway, Haynes & Boone, Dallas, for petitioners.
Michael W. Johnston, Leslie E. Echols, Broude Nelson & Harrington, Fort Worth, Robert J. Clinton, Carol A. Swanda, Law Office of Steven H. Beadles, Dallas, Rickey J. Brantley, Jose Henry & Brantley, Fort Worth, for respondent.
In this case we must determine the propriety of an exemplary damages instruction given to the jury.
This case arises out of the sales techniques employed by the defendants in their dealings with Mitchell Bien, a deaf man who attempted to shop at the defendants' automobile dealership. The court of appeals' recitation of the underlying facts is accurate, supported by the evidence, and cannot be improved by repetition here. See 881 S.W.2d 843, 848-51. Bien sued Grubbs Enterprises, Inc. (the parent company of Grubbs Nissan) and its employees for Deceptive Trade Practice Act violations and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Bien did not bring suit against a related corporate entity, Grubbs Auto Park, Inc., which owns other Grubbs dealerships. The trial court awarded $573,815.00 in actual damages, $222,294.49 in prejudgment interest, and $5,000,000.00 in exemplary damages. The court of appeals affirmed. 881 S.W.2d at 848. Finding error in the exemplary damages jury instruction, we reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and remand this case to the trial court for proceedings in conformity with this opinion.
The trial court's charge on exemplary damages correctly followed the pattern jury charge and properly listed the Kraus factors. See Alamo National Bank v. Kraus, 616 S.W.2d 908 (Tex.1981); PJC 80.06 at 80-19 (1992). However, the court also included the following statement:
You are instructed that in determining the amount of exemplary damages you may not consider the assets, wealth or profitability of the dealerships operating under George Grubbs Auto Park, Inc., unless you find that Grubbs Auto Park, Inc., and George Grubbs Enterprises Inc., are operated as and constitute a single business enterprise. A "single business enterprise" exists when two or more corporations associate together and, rather than operate as separate entities, integrate their resources to achieve a common business purpose.
Prior to submission of the case to the jury, the defendants objected to this instruction on the grounds that it erroneously omitted the factors necessary to determine whether Grubbs Enterprises and Auto Park constituted a single business enterprise. See, e.g. Paramount Petroleum v. Taylor Rental Ctr., 712 S.W.2d 534 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1986, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (listing factors). Assuming without deciding that it would ever be proper for the jury to consider the wealth of a related corporate entity which had not been joined as a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Malone
...471-72 (Tex.1988). We have approved the Kraus factors as instructions for juries about punitive damages. See George Grubbs Enters., Inc. v. Bien, 900 S.W.2d 337, 338 (Tex.1995). Moreover, although we have never considered what type of evidence is admissible to mitigate punitive damages, we ......
-
Price v. Short
...of damages. See George Grubbs Enters., Inc. v. Bien, 881 S.W.2d 843, 858 (Tex.App.--Fort Worth 1994), rev'd on other grounds, 900 S.W.2d 337 (Tex.1995) (error in jury instruction on exemplary damages); Haryanto, 860 S.W.2d at 923; Arrington v. Paschall, 352 S.W.2d 866, 870 (Tex.Civ.App.--Da......
-
Schindler Elevator Corp. v. Anderson
...pet. denied); George Grubbs Enter., Inc. v. Bien, 881 S.W.2d 843, 851 n. 7 (Tex.App. — Fort Worth 1994), rev'd on other grounds, 900 S.W.2d 337 (Tex.1995). Because we have overruled challenges to the negligence portion of the verdict, we need not address the strict liability In conclusion, ......
-
Paxton v. City of Dall.
...to pressure deaf-mute consumer to buy car were legally sufficient evidence of intentional infliction), rev'd on other grounds, 900 S.W.2d 337, 338 (Tex.1995).26 See Tiller, 121 S.W.3d at 714 (holding efforts to pressure widow of contracting party to complete project were legally insufficien......
-
Texas commission on human rights act: procedures and remedies
...the Kraus factors in jury instructions in any case where the plaintiff is seeking exemplary damages. See George Grubbs Enters. v. Bien , 900 S.W.2d 337, 338 (Tex. 1995). A court of appeals confronted with a challenge to the factual sufficiency of an exemplary damages award must discuss the ......
-
Texas Commission on Human Rights Act: Procedures and Remedies
...the Kraus Factors in jury instructions in any case where the plaintiff is seeking exemplary damages. See George Grubbs Enters. v. Bien, 900 S.W.2d 337, 338 (Tex. A court of appeals confronted with a challenge to the factual sufficiency of an exemplary damages award must discuss the evidence......
-
Table of cases
...159 n.15 (1982), §19:2.D.1.b Gentry v. Export Packaging Co. , 238 F.3d 842 (7th Cir. 2001), §13:4.D.2 George Grubbs Enters. v. Bien , 900 S.W.2d 337 (Tex. 1995), §18:8.F.2 George v. Associated Stationers , 932 F. Supp. 1012 (N.D. Ohio 1996), §25:3.F.1 George v. Farmers Electric Cooperative,......
-
Texas Commission on Human Rights Act : Procedures and Remedies
...the Kraus Factors in jury instructions in any case where the plaintiff is seeking exemplary damages. See George Grubbs Enters. v. Bien , 900 S.W.2d 337, 338 (Tex. 1995). A court of appeals confronted with a challenge to the factual sufficiency of an exemplary damages award must discuss the ......