Melodie McFarland and Pamela Lykes v. Stacie Boisseau, 365 S.W.3d 449

Boisseau, caregiver for her elderly mother, faced defamatory accusations from her sisters, McFarland and Lykes, after her mother’s death.
Boisseau asserted defamation per se based on 10 statements by the sisters about improper care and alleged murder of their mother.
At trial, the jury was asked to identify which of the 10 statements, if any, were published, with eight found published.
The jury also found none of the statements privileged and awarded damages for past reputational injury ($5,500) and past mental anguish ($50,000), plus a punitive award of $8,000.
Post-trial, the court granted partial disregard of liability bases, leaving only two statements as defaming per se that were published, affecting the damage basis.
McFarland and Lykes sought a new trial, arguing the damages were based on invalid liability theories; the trial court denied, and the appeal followed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether five statements were not defamation per se and should have been excluded	McFarland and Lykes argued those statements were not per se.	Boisseau contends all statements submitted were defamation per se as charged.	Issue unnecessary; trial court ruling resolved it.
Whether the damages instruction was erroneous after excluding some bases for liability	Damages should reflect only valid defamation per se bases.	Instruction allowed damages despite some invalid bases.	Erroneous guidance but preserved by court’s ruling.
Whether denial of new trial was correct given the liability bases later disregarded	Damages were based on eight statements but liability bases were reduced.	New trial not warranted since error in charge was harmful	Reversal required; new trial must be granted.

Romero v. KPH Consolidation, Inc., 166 S.W.3d 212 (Tex. 2005) (harmful error where invalid liability theories affect damages or apportionment)
Casteel v. Royal-Moto, Inc. (Texas Supreme Court), 22 S.W.3d 378 (Tex. 2000) (broad-form liability questions containing valid and invalid theories require reversal)
Pan Eastern Exploration Co. v. Hufo Oils, 855 F.2d 1106 (5th Cir. 1988) (ambiguous general verdict may require objection to question form to preserve rights)
Mo. Pac. R.R. Co. v. Limmer, 180 S.W.3d 803 (Tex. App.—Hou. [14th Dist.] 2005) (preservation of error when invalid liability bases are submitted)
Schrock v. Sisco, 229 S.W.3d 392 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2007) (preservation of error when invalid liability bases affect charge questions)