Roberto Alonzo and New Prime, Inc. v. Christine John and Christopher Lewis
14-20-00148-CV
| Tex. App. | Mar 29, 2022Background
- Roberto Alonzo, driving for New Prime, rear‑ended a sedan on I‑45; appellants stipulated liability. Jury awarded >$12 million for plaintiffs Christine John and Christopher Lewis (breakdown: John—past physical $2.5M, future physical $4.7M, past mental $1.7M, future mental $3.1M; Lewis—past physical $150K, past mental $300K).
- John (age 24 at crash) sustained head/neck injuries and was diagnosed with trigeminal neuralgia; doctors described it as extremely severe, likely chronic, and difficult to cure; she testified to daily debilitating facial pain and suicidal ideation; life expectancy ≈51 more years.
- Lewis was a passenger, suffered head/neck/back pain, diagnoses including spinal stenosis, radiculopathy; received injections and conservative care and testified about ongoing past pain and emotional effects of living with John’s condition.
- Trial court entered judgment consistent with the verdict; motions for new trial and JNOV were overruled by operation of law. Appellants raised 12 issues on appeal challenging evidentiary sufficiency, voir dire and closing argument conduct, admission of Alonzo’s driving history, and negligent‑entrustment submission.
- The court reviewed legal and factual sufficiency under City of Keller and Golden Eagle Archery standards, evaluated counsel conduct under the incurable‑argument framework, and considered harmless‑error principles for evidentiary rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency — John: past & future physical pain excessive | John’s severe trigeminal neuralgia and spinal injuries justify large awards | Awards are excessive given lack of economic damages, continued work, refusal of some treatments | Affirmed; evidence factually sufficient given extreme, chronic pain and expert testimony |
| Sufficiency — John: past & future mental anguish unsupported | John’s emotional testimony, lifestyle changes, suicidal ideation show high distress | Physical pain alone cannot support separate mental anguish awards | Affirmed; direct testimony and disruption of life suffice to support past and future mental anguish |
| Sufficiency — Lewis: past physical & past mental anguish | Lewis’s medical records, diagnoses, functional assessments, and testimony about life disruption support awards | Lewis said he was "doing fine" at trial and used coping mechanisms | Affirmed; evidence supports both past physical pain and past mental anguish (including effects of living with John) |
| Cumulative awards/proportionality | Excessive noneconomic awards relative to economic damages (≈24:1) warrant remittitur/new trial | High ratio alone not dispositive; each case judged on its facts and evidence supports awards | Affirmed; ratio insufficient to reverse given supporting evidence |
| Voir dire & strikes for cause | Commitment questions and strikes were improper; appellants lost peremptory strikes | Questions were hypothetical to expose fixed caps; trial court properly struck biased jurors | Affirmed; trial court did not abuse discretion and no harm shown from strikes because objected jurors were not seated |
| Closing argument misconduct (race/gender, references to fees, discount/appeal) | Counsel improperly injected race/gender bias, invoked attorney fees, and made incurable inflammatory statements | Arguments were appeals to impartiality, hyperbole, or responsive to juror questions; any curable by instruction | Affirmed; remarks were isolated/hyperbolic or invited by voir dire and not incurably prejudicial |
| Negligent entrustment & admission of driving record | Driving history evidence was irrelevant/prejudicial and insufficient entrustment proof | New Prime stipulated vicarious liability; entrustment finding unnecessary; driving history not outcome‑determinative | Affirmed; entrustment issue moot due to stipulation and any evidentiary error was harmless |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (legal‑sufficiency standard and review principles)
- Golden Eagle Archery, Inc. v. Jackson, 116 S.W.3d 757 (Tex. 2003) (factual‑sufficiency review; jury discretion on damages)
- Parkway Co. v. Woodruff, 901 S.W.2d 434 (Tex. 1995) (mental anguish evidentiary principles)
- Hancock v. Variyam, 400 S.W.3d 59 (Tex. 2013) (mental‑anguish requires substantial disruption or high degree of distress)
- Hyundai Motor Co. v. Vasquez, 189 S.W.3d 743 (Tex. 2006) (broad trial‑court discretion in voir dire)
- K.J. v. USA Water Polo Inc., 383 S.W.3d 593 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2012) (commitment‑question doctrine in voir dire)
- Penalver v. Living Ctrs. of Tex., Inc., 256 S.W.3d 678 (Tex. 2008) (standard for incurable jury argument)
- Cavnar v. Quality Control Parking, Inc., 678 S.W.2d 548 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1984) (striking juror for bias upheld)
- PNS Stores, Inc. v. Munguia, 484 S.W.3d 503 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2016) (future pain/mental anguish recoverability)
- Reliance Steel & Aluminum Co. v. Sevcik, 267 S.W.3d 867 (Tex. 2008) (harmlessness and prejudice analysis for admitted evidence)