Ambrosio Longoria v. Hunter Express, Limited, et a
932 F.3d 360
| 5th Cir. | 2019Background
- Plaintiff Ambrosio Longoria, a commercial truck driver, was injured in a collision caused by defendant Sarbjit Singh Basatia; Longoria later developed back injuries including a bone spur and underwent surgery, with ongoing chronic pain and a permanent 50-lb lifting restriction.
- Jury awarded Longoria over $2.8 million across multiple categories, including $1,000,000 for future physical pain and $140,000 for future mental anguish.
- Defendants moved for a new trial arguing (a) no evidentiary support for future mental anguish and future physical impairment and (b) excessiveness of future physical pain and past physical impairment; the district court denied the motion.
- On appeal, defendants preserved two challenges presented below (future mental anguish sufficiency; excessiveness of future physical pain) but forfeited two new arguments not raised below (no past mental anguish; excessiveness of future physical impairment).
- The Fifth Circuit held the $1,000,000 future physical pain award excessive under either Texas factual-sufficiency review or the federal maximum-recovery benchmark and remanded for the district court to determine remittitur amount; it vacated the future mental anguish award for lack of evidentiary support and affirmed other awards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preservation of new sufficiency/excessiveness challenges | Longoria did not contest forfeiture; maintains verdict stands | Defendants argued both preserved or harmlessly forfeited | Forfeiture: new challenges to past mental anguish and future physical impairment were forfeited because not raised below; preserved issues reviewed on merits |
| Sufficiency of evidence for future mental anguish | Longoria relied on fear of losing ability to drive and some testimony of feeling "useless" | Defendants argued no evidence of the high degree/frequent disruption Texas requires | Vacated future mental anguish award: evidence insufficient to show compensable mental anguish under Texas law |
| Excessiveness of future physical pain ($1,000,000) | Longoria argued jury assessment appropriate given chronic pain and some permanent limitations | Defendants argued award excessive compared to evidence and comparable verdicts; urged remittitur/new trial | Award excessive under either Texas factual-sufficiency standard or federal maximum-recovery approach; vacated and remanded for district court to set remittitur amount |
| Governing standard for excessiveness/remittitur (state law vs. federal maximum-recovery rule) | Longoria relied on state sufficiency review | Defendants emphasized federal maximum-recovery rule | Court: outcome same under either standard here; Gasperini requires applying state law to excessiveness; maximum-recovery rule may still guide the size of any remittitur; district court to apply discretion on remittitur |
Key Cases Cited
- Gasperini v. Ctr. for Humanities, Inc., 518 U.S. 415 (federal excessiveness review in diversity cases governed by state law)
- Glazer v. Glazer, 278 F. Supp. 476 (E.D. La.) (origin and rationale of the maximum-recovery remittitur approach)
- Lebron v. United States, 279 F.3d 321 (5th Cir.) (using comparable published state decisions to measure maximum recovery)
- Pope v. Moore, 711 S.W.2d 622 (Tex.) (Texas uses factual-sufficiency standard for remittitur/excessiveness)
- Puga v. RCX Solutions, Inc., 922 F.3d 285 (5th Cir.) (remittitur practice and remand to district court; recent Fifth Circuit application)
- Saenz v. Fidelity & Guar. Ins. Underwriters, 925 S.W.2d 607 (Tex.) (standard for mental anguish recovery)
- Primoris Energy Servs. Corp. v. Myers, 569 S.W.3d 745 (Tex. App.) (comparable Texas case upholding a substantial but smaller future pain award)