in Re Health Care Unlimited, Inc.
429 S.W.3d 600
| Tex. | 2014Background
- Valdemar’s Survivors sued Health Care Unlimited, Inc. (HCU) and Edna Gonzalez for death of Valdemar in an automobile collision.
- Jury found Gonzalez negligent but not acting within the scope of employment, so HCU was not vicariously liable.
- Survivors moved for mistrial alleging juror misconduct due to communications between Juror Alegria and an HCU employee, Villarreal, during deliberations.
- Trial court first granted mistrial, then granted a new trial in an amended order citing multiple factors.
- The amended order found potential integrity concerns and misconduct but did not conclude the communications were material or caused injury.
- HCU filed mandamus; the Texas Supreme Court reviewed under In re Toyota and Rule 327 requirements for juror misconduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether juror misconduct occurred during deliberations | Valdemar’s Survivors | HCU | Yes misconduct occurred; but need not determine injury yet |
| Whether the misconduct probably caused injury to the verdict | Survivors argue injury probable | No probable injury shown | Probable injury not shown; failure to prove injury |
| Whether misconduct was material to the verdict | Misconduct was material to outcome | No indication of materiality | No demonstrated materiality; not necessary to decide if injury absent |
| Whether the trial court’s new-trial ruling complied with Rule 327 and Toyota standards | Order justified by preserving verdict integrity | Order premised on appearance rather than valid findings | Court abused discretion; reasons not valid to warrant new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., 407 S.W.3d 746 (Tex. 2013) (allows merits-based review of a trial court’s new-trial grant when reasons are stated)
- Redinger v. Living, Inc., 689 S.W.2d 415 (Tex. 1985) (three elements for new-trial based on misconduct: occurrence, materiality, probable injury)
- Golden Eagle Archery, Inc. v. Jackson, 24 S.W.3d 362 (Tex. 2000) (misconduct and injury determinations are factual questions for the trial court)
- In re Columbia Med. Ctr. Of Las Colinas, Subsidiary, L.P., 290 S.W.3d 204 (Tex. 2009) (requires clear, understandable, specific explanation for new-trial orders)
- In re United Scaffolding, Inc., 377 S.W.3d 685 (Tex. 2012) (explanation must be legally appropriate and case-specific)
- Texas Employers’ Insurance Ass’n v. McCaslin, 317 S.W.2d 916 (Tex. 1958) (injury can be shown by direct, injury-causing misconduct; contrast with present case)