In re United Scaffolding, Inc., No. 09-0403.
| Court | Supreme Court of Texas |
| Writing for the Court | Per Curiam |
| Citation | 301 S.W.3d 661 |
| Parties | In re UNITED SCAFFOLDING, INC., Relator. |
| Docket Number | No. 09-0403. |
| Decision Date | 15 January 2010 |
Kathleen Marie Kennedy, Mehaffy Weber PC, Beaumont, TX, for Relator, United Scaffolding, Inc.
[301 S.W.3d 662]
Timothy W. Ferguson, Lauren E. Marshall, Suzanne F. Schaper, Ferguson Firm, Beaumont, TX, for Real Party in Interest, James Levine.
PER CURIAM.
In this original proceeding we consider whether the trial court abused its discretion by disregarding a jury verdict and granting a new trial when the reason it gave for doing so was "in the interest of justice and fairness." Based on our decision in In re Columbia Medical Center of Las Colinas, 290 S.W.3d 204 (Tex.2009), we hold that it did and conditionally grant relief in part.
James and Lisa Levine sued United Scaffolding, Inc. for damages because of injuries James suffered when he fell from scaffolding built by United. Following a jury trial, and based on the verdict, the trial court signed a judgment in favor of the Levines. The Levines filed a motion for new trial. They asserted that (1) the jury findings of no damages for physical pain and suffering, mental anguish, physical impairment, past medical care, and loss of earning capacity were against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence; (2) the damages awarded were manifestly too small; and (3) the trial court should grant a new trial in the interest of fairness and justice. The trial court granted the Levines' motion. It stated in its order that "[a]fter considering Plaintiffs['] . . . Motion for New trial, the court GRANTS the motion and orders [a] new trial in the interest of justice and fairness."
Asserting that the trial court abused its discretion in disregarding the jury verdict, United petitioned the court of appeals for writ of mandamus. A divided court denied relief. 287 S.W.3d 274. United now seeks mandamus relief here. It argues that the trial court abused its discretion by granting the Levines' motion when (1) the only reason given for granting the motion was "in the interest of justice and fairness," and (2) the jury verdict was supported by sufficient evidence.
After the court of appeals issued its opinion, we held that a trial court acts arbitrarily and abuses its discretion if it disregards a jury verdict and grants a new trial, but does not specifically set out its reasons. In re Columbia Med. Ctr. of Las Colinas, 290 S.W.3d 204, 212-13 (Tex. 2009). We also held that (1) stating the new...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stage Stores, Inc. v. Gunnerson, 01-13-00708-CV
...that military's yarmulke prohibition had no "reasoned basis" and therefore violated First Amendment).26 In re United Scaffolding, Inc., 301 S.W.3d 661, 663 (Tex.2010) (holding order granting new trial "in the interests of justice and fairness" was not "a specific reason" for awarding new tr......
-
United Scaffolding, Inc. v. Levine, 15-0921
...the evidence. The trial court agreed and granted a new trial "in the interest of justice and fairness." In re United Scaffolding, Inc. , 301 S.W.3d 661, 662 (Tex. 2010) (per curiam) (orig. proceeding). Asserting that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering the new trial, USI filed......
-
In re Old Am. Cnty. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., NUMBER 13-13-00644-CV
...it disregards a jury verdict and grants a new trial, but does not specifically set out its reasons." See In re United Scaffolding, Inc., 301 S.W.3d 661, 662 (Tex. 2010) (orig. proceeding) (citing In re Columbia Med. Ctr. of Las Colinas, 290 S.W.3d at 212-13). The court more specifically hel......
-
Parex Res., Inc. v. Erg Res., LLC, s. 14–13–00043–CV, 14–13–00073–CV.
...not because it is where plaintiff feels effects of injury, but because of defendant's relationship with forum-based plaintiff); Kelly, 301 S.W.3d at 661 (“[W]e rejected the concept of directed-a-tort jurisdiction in Michiana, instead affirming the importance of the defendant's contacts with......
-
Stage Stores, Inc. v. Gunnerson, NO. 01-13-00708-CV
...that military's yarmulke prohibition had no "reasoned basis" and therefore violated First Amendment).26 In re United Scaffolding, Inc., 301 S.W.3d 661, 663 (Tex.2010) (holding order granting new trial "in the interests of justice and fairness" was not "a specific reason" for awarding new tr......
-
United Scaffolding, Inc. v. Levine, No. 15-0921
...the evidence. The trial court agreed and granted a new trial "in the interest of justice and fairness." In re United Scaffolding, Inc. , 301 S.W.3d 661, 662 (Tex. 2010) (per curiam) (orig. proceeding). Asserting that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering the new trial, USI filed......
-
In re Old Am. Cnty. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., NUMBER 13-13-00644-CV
...it disregards a jury verdict and grants a new trial, but does not specifically set out its reasons." See In re United Scaffolding, Inc., 301 S.W.3d 661, 662 (Tex. 2010) (orig. proceeding) (citing In re Columbia Med. Ctr. of Las Colinas, 290 S.W.3d at 212-13). The court more specifically hel......
-
Moncrief Oil Int'l Inc. v. Gazprom, No. 2–09–00336–CV.
...Easy Livin' Country, Inc. rejected the “directed-a-tort-at-Texas” specific jurisdiction analysis. 168 S.W.3d at 790–92; see also Kelly, 301 S.W.3d at 661 (reversing court of appeals for applying directed-a-tort-at-Texas analysis and explaining, “we rejected the concept of directed-a-tort ju......