Alexandro Puga v. About Tyme Transport, Inc
922 F.3d 285
| 5th Cir. | 2019Background
- RCX Solutions (motor carrier) contracted with driver Ronald Brown to move a load; Brown crossed the median and collided with Alexandro Puga, who survived with severe injuries; Brown died.
- The Pugas sued RCX (and others) for negligence; a jury found RCX liable under a theory that RCX was "using motor vehicle(s) it did not own to transport property under an arrangement with Ronald Brown."
- Jury awarded Mrs. Puga loss-of-consortium damages: $1.6M (past) and $1.8M (future); district court denied RCX’s pre- and post-verdict Rule 50 motions and admitted Trooper Andrew Smith as an expert accident investigator.
- RCX appealed, challenging: preservation of a regulatory/statutory-employee argument under Rule 50, the jury instructions (definition of motor carrier), admissibility of the trooper’s expert testimony, excessiveness of consortium awards, and failure to apply a settlement credit.
- Fifth Circuit affirmed most rulings but reversed and remanded for recalculation of (1) past consortium damages (found excessive under the maximum-recovery rule relative to comparable Texas authority) and (2) a settlement credit the district court had not applied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Puga) | Defendant's Argument (RCX) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preservation of statutory-employee/regulatory challenge under Rule 50 | RCX’s liability is supported by evidence that RCX used vehicles not owned by it and thus is liable under the statutory-employee doctrine | The statutory-employee doctrine is defunct under recent regulatory amendments; this legal argument was raised only after verdict in Rule 50(b) | RCX waived the new purely legal statutory-employee argument by failing to raise it in its Rule 50(a) motion; denial of Rule 50(b) affirmed |
| Jury instructions re: "motor carrier" definition | Instruction properly limited to carriers "using motor vehicles not owned by it to transport property under an arrangement"—so regulations can apply | Instruction was overbroad and failed to require a finding that RCX met the federal definition of "motor carrier" | Instructions appropriate; jury necessarily found RCX was acting as a motor carrier using non-owned equipment; instruction affirmed |
| Admissibility of Trooper Smith as expert on causation | Trooper’s scene observations, photos, witness interviews, skid/median marks, and reliance on reconstruction assisted the jury | Smith lacked key measurements (speed, vehicle inspection, weight) and thus his causation opinion was irrelevant/speculative | District court did not abuse discretion: Smith’s methodology and facts made his testimony sufficiently reliable and helpful; admission affirmed |
| Excessiveness of loss-of-consortium awards | Awards supported by evidence of severe, long-term injuries and deterioration of marital relationship | Awards (especially past consortium $1.6M) are excessive compared to Texas precedents | Future consortium award ($1.8M) affirmed as within 150% of highest comparable Texas award; past consortium award reversed and remanded for recalculation under maximum-recovery rule |
| Settlement credit | N/A (Pugas conceded credit applies) | RCX entitled to a settlement credit under Texas law; district court did not apply one | Court reversed district court for failure to apply credit and remanded to compute and reduce judgment accordingly |
Key Cases Cited
- Mozingo v. Correct Mfg. Corp., 752 F.2d 168 (5th Cir. 1985) (Rule 50(b) is a renewal of Rule 50(a); new grounds not preserved are waived)
- In re Isbell Records, Inc., 774 F.3d 859 (5th Cir. 2014) (failure to raise an argument at trial or in Rule 50(a) waives it on Rule 50(b))
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (U.S. 1993) (expert admissibility framework: relevance and reliability)
- Salas v. Carpenter, 980 F.2d 299 (5th Cir. 1992) (expert must bring more than lawyer argument; court’s gatekeeping role explained)
- Lebron v. United States, 279 F.3d 321 (5th Cir. 2002) (maximum-recovery rule and use of 150% multiplier for jury verdict comparisons)