In re Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.
| Decision Date | 30 August 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. 10–0933.,10–0933. |
| Parties | In re TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC. and Viscount Properties II, L.P., d/b/a Hoy Fox Toyota/Lexus, Relators. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Roger W. Hughes, Adams & Graham, L.L.P., Harlingen, TX, Ruth G. Malinas, Plunkett & Gibson, Inc., San Antonio, TX, for Amicus Curiae Texas Association of Defense Counsel.
E. Lee Parsley, Texas Civil Justice League, Austin, TX, for Amicus Curiae Texas Civil Justice League.
Enrique Chavez Jr., The Chavez Law Firm, Enrique Moreno, Law Offices of Enrique Moreno, John P. Mobbs, Attorney at Law, El Paso, TX, Real Party in Interest Rebecca King.
Carlos Rincon, Rincon Law Group, Richard Barrett Phillips Jr., El Paso County Probate Ct., El Paso, TX, David P. Stone, Kurt C. Kern, Bowman and Brooke LLP, Scott P. Stolley, Thompson & Knight LLP, Dallas, TX, for Relator Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.
We have recently held that a trial court must explain with reasonable specificity why it has set aside a jury verdict and granted anew trial. 1 Without such an explanation, parties in the case can only speculate about why the court ostensibly circumvented a critical constitutional right. The parties—and the public—are entitled to know why the trial court believes an injustice would occur if the jury's verdict were to stand. In this case, the jury returned a verdict, and the trial court rendered a judgment in conformity with it. The trial court then ordered a new trial. The order is reasonably specific. Its stated reasons are superficially sound. The question is whether an appellate court may, in an original proceeding, determine whether the reasonably specific and legally sound rationale is actually true. And if it is not true, we must decide whether the trial court abuses its discretion by granting a new trial.
We hold that an appellate court may conduct a merits review of the bases for a new trial order after a trial court has set aside a jury verdict. If the record does not support the trial court's rationale for ordering a new trial, the appellate court may grant mandamus relief. We conditionally grant relief.
I. BackgroundA. Facts
Richard King was driving his Toyota 4Runner along a highway when a commercial truck turned onto the road in front of him. King swerved to avoid the truck but lost control of his car, which rolled over several times. King was ejected from the vehicle and died a few hours later.
B. Procedural History
King's family sued Toyota and the local Toyota dealership for strict products liability, negligence, wrongful death, and survivorship.2 The Kings contended that the 4Runner's allegedly defective seat belt system caused his ejection from the car and his subsequent death.
The family asserted that King was wearing his seat belt at the time of the accident. But in a videotaped pretrial deposition, State Trooper Justin Coon, who responded to the emergency call and arrived on the scene to investigate, testified that he believed that King was not wearing the belt at the time of the rollover. Specifically, Officer Coon testified:
Q: ... How do you know about the position of the seat belt?
Officer Coon: Well, if he was wearing it or if it broke off, it would have been in a position where it wasn't in. Obviously, he wasn't wearing it, because it was in a straight-up position, like it had been sitting there a while, and it hadn't been pulled out.
Q: So the seat belt was stowed?
Officer Coon: Yes.
Q: Did you inspect the webbing, to see if there were any marks on it?
Officer Coon: There was not any.
Q: And you did look at it?
Officer Coon: I always look at the seat belts, if they are not wearing one.
Q: Did you pull the seat belt out?
Officer Coon: No, I did not.
The Kings filed a motion to preclude at trial “[a]ny reference to the purported opinions of Officer[ ] Justin Coon ... since [he] ha[d] never been identified by Defendants as [an] expert witness[ ] in this case.” At a pretrial hearing, the Kings clarified that they would not object to Officer Coon's testifying about his observations of the accident scene as long as he did not offer his opinion that King had not been wearing a seat belt when the car rolled over. The Kings later filed an additional motion in limine to bar “[a]ny testimony from any purported fact witness including law enforcement officials, investigators, emergency personnel, medical personnel and bystanders that Richard King was not wearing his seatbelt ... before or during the [ac]cident.” The trial court granted these motions.
The case proceeded to trial in May 2009.3 Despite the limine orders, Officer Coon's statement found its way into the record, in front of the jury, three times before the close of evidence. Because the trial court's order cites Toyota's “prejudicial,” “brazen[ ],” and “inflammatory” reference to Officer Coon's seat belt testimony as a basis for granting a new trial, it is important to detail precisely the manner in which the information was conveyed to the jury.
The initial instance occurred when Toyota's counsel introduced Officer Coon's video deposition. To comply with the court's limine orders, Toyota had redacted portions of the officer's testimony, and the relevant passage was edited and played into the record as follows:
Q:... How do you know about the position of the seat belt?
Officer Coon:Well, if he was wearing it or if it broke off, it would have been in a position where it wasn't in. Obviously, he wasn't wearing it, because it was in a straight-up position, like it had been sitting there a while, and it hadn't been pulled out.
Q: So the seat belt was stowed?
Officer Coon: Yes.
Q: Did you inspect the webbing, to see if there were any marks on it?
Officer Coon: There was not any.
Q: And you did look at it?
Officer Coon: I always look at the seat belts, if they are not wearing one.
Q: Did you pull the seat belt out?
Officer Coon: No, I did not.
Q: How—tell—describe to me how you look[ed] at the seat belt.
Officer Coon: I mean, it was on its side—
Immediately after this testimony, in front of the jury, the Kings' attorney introduced the “if they are not wearing one” portion of the statement into the record:
Kings' Counsel: Your Honor, after the answer, [“]I always look at the seatbelts, if they are not wearing one.[”] And then there is—under the rule of optional completeness—a question and answer that was not read and I would like to publish that to the jury at this time.
(Emphasis added.)
Toyota's attorney was quick to alert the trial court that the plaintiffs' counsel had just introduced Officer Coon's suggestion that King was not wearing a seat belt.
Toyota's Counsel: If I understand it, Your Honor, he just said the question was, [“]Did you look at it?[”] And the answer, [“]I always look at the seat belts.[”] [To the Kings' attorney] And you said what?
Kings' Counsel: And he finishes the answer.
Toyota's Counsel:You finish the answer.
Kings' Counsel: Under the rule of optional completeness, question at line 23, [“]Did you pull the seat belt out? Answer: No, I did not. [”] That's what I wanted read into the record.
Toyota's Counsel: Your Honor, I want the full answer to line 21 [just before the previous question and answer] read into the evidence because he just stated it out loud.
...
(Bench conference.)
...
Toyota's Counsel: Right. [To the Kings' attorney] You read, [“] If they are not wearing one.[”] We all heard it. That's the biggest door opening I have ever seen.
(End of bench conference.)
...
The Court: ... [To Toyota's attorney] I think [the Kings' attorney] has read into the record what you wanted published.
Toyota's Counsel: That's correct. And read into the record the complete answer to the prior question.
(Emphases added.)
The Kings' attorney did not move to strike the testimony or seek a mistrial, nor did he request a curative or limiting instruction after quoting the statement. He did not revisit the seat belt issue during his subsequent tender of designated testimony from Officer Coon's deposition.
During Toyota's direct examination of expert witness Lee S. Carr, the statement was again read into the record. Carr, an accident reconstructionist, built a scale model of the accident scene. Before trial, he surveyed the accident site, read available police reports, and reviewed Officer Coon's deposition. The relevant portion of Carr's testimony states:
Toyota's Counsel: All right. And then yesterday, sir, Trooper Coon was presented by deposition. You have read his deposition, have you not, sir?
Carr: Yes.
Toyota's Counsel: I want to review this deposition passage which was read into the record, sir, yesterday. This is page 26 beginning on line 17—or 15, rather.
Question: So the seat belt was stowed?
Answer: Yes.
Question: Did you inspect the webbing to see if there were any marks on it?
Answer: There was not any.
Question: And did you look at it?
Answer: I always look at the seat belt if they are not wearing one.
Question: Did you pull the seat belt out?
Answer: No, I did not.
The Court: Hold on ... [Kings' attorney] has an objection ...
Kings' Counsel: Your Honor, we need the jury out.
(Jury is not present.)
Kings' Counsel: Your Honor, let me sort of give you some history here. Yesterday counsel showed what he just showed to the witness, showed it to Your Honor, and said, I'm not going to play this. This is within your ruling where the officer said, [“]If he is not wearing it.[”] ... That that's not testimony consistent with Your Honor's ruling that should be played with the jury.
Yesterday...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United Scaffolding, Inc. v. Levine
...290 S.W.3d 204, 213 (Tex. 2009) (orig. proceeding); In re United Scaffolding, Inc. , 377 S.W.3d at 688–89 ; In re Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. , 407 S.W.3d 746, 749 (Tex. 2013) (orig. proceeding)). While Levine argues that merits-based review of the new trial order was appropriate only ......
-
In re Old Am. Cnty. Mut. Fire Ins. Co.
...the "meaningful opportunity to correct the error if it cannot be challenged now by mandamus." Old American further cites In re Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., for the proposition that an appellate court may conduct a merits-based review of the reasons given for granting a new trial. 407 S......
-
In re Peterson Constr., Inc.
...may conduct a merits-based mandamus review of a trial court's articulated reasons for granting a new trial. In re Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., 407 S.W.3d 746, 758 (Tex. 2013) (orig. proceeding); see In re Whataburger Rests. LP, 429 S.W.3d 597, 598 (Tex. 2014) (orig. proceeding) (per cu......
-
In re Kirby Offshore Marine Operating, LLC
... ... cleaned by Clean Water of New York, Inc. (Clean Water). After ... Clean Water's work on the ... proceeding) (per curiam); ... see In re Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. , 407 ... S.W.3d 746, ... ...
-
Mandamus Review Of Orders Granting New Trials: What's The Standard?
...to review the stated reasons for granting a new trial to see if they were supported by the underlying record. In re Toyota Motor Sales, 407 S.W. 3d 746 (Tex. 2013). The underlying policy driving these decisions is to preserve the right of trial by jury by ensuring that trial courts do not i......
-
Mandamus Review Of Orders Granting New Trials: What's The Standard?
...to review the stated reasons for granting a new trial to see if they were supported by the underlying record. In re Toyota Motor Sales, 407 S.W. 3d 746 (Tex. 2013). The underlying policy driving these decisions is to preserve the right of trial by jury by ensuring that trial courts do not i......
-
CHAPTER 2 Standards of Review and Scope of Review
...688–89 (Tex. 2012).[302] In re United Scaffolding, Inc., 377 S.W.3d 685, 688 (Tex. 2012).[303] In re Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., 407 S.W.3d 746, 758 (Tex. 2013); see In re Wyatt Field Serv. Co., 454 S.W.3d 145, 150 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2014, orig. proceeding) (determining pr......
-
CHAPTER 6 Petitions for Writ of Mandamus
...In re Columbia Med. Ctr., 290 S.W.3d 204, 212–13 (Tex. 2009) (orig. proceeding).[254] In re Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., 407 S.W.3d 746, 758 (Tex. 2013) (orig. proceeding) (permitting merits-based mandamus review of reasons articulated in new trial order).[255] In re Toyota Motor Sales......
-
CHAPTER 1.I. Motion in Limine Use and Procedure
...excluded matters in the presence of the jury before the trial court has ruled on admissibility. In re Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., 407 S.W.3d 746, 760 (Tex. 2013) (orig. proceeding); Geuder v. State, 115 S.W.3d 11, 14-15 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003); In re Hightower, 580 S.W.3d 248, 254 (Tex......