670 S.W.3d 546
Tex.2023Background
- Midnight multi-vehicle pileup on icy, unlit I‑40 near Amarillo after Sarah Gregory’s New Prime eighteen‑wheeler jackknifed; Bhupinder Deol died after being crushed while assisting victims.
- Deol’s wife, children, and parents sued Gregory and New Prime; jury verdict awarded the Deol family about $16.45 million, of which ~$15.07 million were noneconomic damages for mental anguish and loss of companionship.
- Defendants appealed; the Dallas court of appeals en banc affirmed. Key appellate issues: sufficiency of the noneconomic award and exclusion of ATG as a designated responsible third party.
- At trial plaintiffs’ counsel used high‑number “anchors” (e.g., fighter jet price, Rothko painting, “two cents a mile” for company mileage) in closing; defendants objected and sought to designate ATG as a responsible third party (designation was struck).
- Texas Supreme Court held the record supports the existence of compensable noneconomic harm but finds no rational, evidence‑based connection to the $15M figure and that improper anchoring likely influenced the verdict.
- The Court also held there was sufficient evidence to let the jury consider ATG as a responsible third party; it reversed the court of appeals and remanded for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard and sufficiency for noneconomic damages amount | Jury discretion + proper instructions suffice; verdict should stand | Saenz/Bentley require evidence justifying the amount; court of appeals was overly deferential | Amount review requires evidence of existence and a rational, evidence‑grounded connection to the amount; jury discretion is limited |
| Whether $15M noneconomic award is supported by the record | Chohan: testimony (nature, duration, severity of grief) supports award | Gregory/New Prime: no evidence links testimony to the dollar amount; closing argument anchors influenced award | Testimony proved existence of harm but did not provide a rational basis for the amount; award reversed |
| Use of economic:noneconomic ratios and comparative anchors | Plaintiff: economic damages or jury discretion can inform noneconomic award | Defendants: ratio/anchors are unreliable and can be improper if unsubstantiated | Court rejects mandatory ratio rule; condemns unsubstantiated anchors as improper and insufficient to justify amounts |
| Exclusion of ATG as responsible third party | Chohan: no evidence of ATG duty, negligence, or causation | Gregory/New Prime: ATG’s overturning closed the remaining lane and substantially contributed to fatal sequence | There was sufficient evidence raising a fact issue as to ATG’s responsibility; exclusion was error and requires a new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Bentley v. Bunton, 94 S.W.3d 561 (Tex. 2002) (requires evidence justifying amount of mental‑anguish award)
- Saenz v. Fidelity & Guar. Ins. Underwriters, 925 S.W.2d 607 (Tex. 1996) (existence of mental anguish and evidence to justify amount are both required)
- Parkway Co. v. Woodruff, 901 S.W.2d 434 (Tex. 1995) (mental‑anguish proof must show nature, duration, and severity)
- Sanchez v. Schindler, 651 S.W.2d 249 (Tex. 1983) (abandoned strict pecuniary‑loss rule; allowed wrongful‑death noneconomic recovery)
- Moore v. Lillebo, 722 S.W.2d 683 (Tex. 1986) (permitted recovery for mental anguish and loss of companionship without physical manifestation)
- Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Dorsey, 18 S.W. 444 (Tex. 1886) (‘‘shocks the conscience’’ standard is too elastic)
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (standards for taking cases from the jury and evidentiary review)
- J&D Towing, LLC v. Am. Alt. Ins. Corp., 478 S.W.3d 649 (Tex. 2016) (compensatory damages aim to place plaintiffs as nearly as possible in pre‑injury position)