Timothy Garrett Lane and Choat Enterprises, Inc. v. Silverio Martinez, II and Diana Martinez, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Silverio Martinez, III
494 S.W.3d 339
| Tex. App. | 2015Background
- Decedent Silverio Martinez III died in a head-on collision when defendant Timothy Lane crossed the centerline while driving a truck owned by Choat Enterprises; Choat stipulated Lane was acting in the scope of employment.
- Plaintiffs (Silverio and Diana Martinez, parents; and Norma Jimenez, who claimed to be common-law spouse) sued for wrongful death and survival damages; gross-negligence and direct-negligence claims were dismissed by directed verdicts.
- At trial Lane invoked the Fifth Amendment; evidence of the relationship between decedent and his parents was presented by the parents and others.
- The jury found Lane’s negligence proximately caused the death and awarded Silverio and Diana large non-pecuniary damages: $234,250 each for past/future mental anguish and past/future loss of companionship (totaling $937,000 each), plus modest pecuniary and funeral awards; Jimenez’s marital claim failed.
- Appellants challenged (1) factual sufficiency of the non-pecuniary awards, (2) trial court’s refusal to suggest remittitur, (3) alleged improper and incurable jury arguments, and (4) exclusion of a distribution agreement among plaintiffs.
- The court held the non-pecuniary awards were not supported by factually sufficient evidence (reversed and remanded for new trial on liability and damages) but affirmed portions of the judgment (funeral expenses and claims dismissed by directed verdict).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Factual sufficiency of non-pecuniary damages (past & future mental anguish; past & future loss of companionship) | Martinez parents: testimony showed close relationship and profound grief warranting large awards | Lane/Choat: awards are excessive, unsupported, and the jury simply "picked a number"; large ratio to pecuniary damages shows irrationality | Court: Sustained defendants’ challenge — evidence insufficient to support the large, identical amounts; reversed and remanded for new trial on liability and damages |
| Remittitur (trial court refused; appellants ask appellate suggestion) | Martinez parents: (implicit) awards should stand; no specific lower amount urged | Lane/Choat: asked remittitur to reduce non-pecuniary awards (proposed $250,000 each) | Court: Declined to suggest remittitur because no appropriate remittitur amount was readily determinable; trial court did not err in denying remittitur |
| Improper jury arguments by plaintiffs’ counsel | Martinez parents: (not detailed in opinion summary) | Lane/Choat: counsel made improper, incurable arguments that likely influenced excessive awards | Court: Did not reach this issue because reversal on factual sufficiency required new trial (claims not addressed) |
| Exclusion of distribution agreement among plaintiffs | Martinez parents: excluded agreement was relevant to damages allocation | Lane/Choat: admission would show pooling and affect damages credibility | Court: Did not reach this evidentiary claim due to disposition on damages sufficiency |
Key Cases Cited
- Baptist Mem’l Hosp. Sys. v. Sampson, 969 S.W.2d 945 (Tex. 1998) (employer vicarious liability under respondeat superior)
- Saenz v. Fidelity & Guar. Ins. Underwriters, 925 S.W.2d 607 (Tex. 1996) (appellate review requires evidence of existence and of amount for mental-anguish awards)
- Bentley v. Bunton, 94 S.W.3d 561 (Tex. 2002) (plurality) (non-pecuniary awards subject to appellate evidentiary review; jury not free to pick numbers without support)
- Waste Mgmt. of Tex., Inc. v. Tex. Disposal Sys. Landfill, Inc., 434 S.W.3d 142 (Tex. 2014) (non-pecuniary damages measured by amount a reasonable person could possibly estimate as fair compensation)
- Plas-Tex, Inc. v. U.S. Steel Corp., 772 S.W.2d 442 (Tex. 1989) (standard for factual-sufficiency review)
- Moore v. Lillebo, 722 S.W.2d 683 (Tex. 1986) (distinguishing mental anguish from loss of companionship and society)
- Thomas v. Uzoka, 290 S.W.3d 437 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2009) (discussing proof required for mental anguish and loss of companionship)
- Hawkins v. Walker, 238 S.W.3d 517 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2007) (reversed large parental non-pecuniary awards where evidence did not show severe, prolonged grief or daily-activity interference)