In re Toyota Motor
Sales, U.S.A., Inc.
Supreme Court of Texas, No. 10-0933 (August 30, 2013)
Chief Justice Jefferson (Opinion)
After a jury returned a verdict for the defendant, Toyota Motor Sales, the plaintiff sought a new trial on the basis that defendant’s counsel improperly utilized evidence barred by a motion in limine during closing arguments. But plaintiffs’ counsel had inadvertently offered that damaging evidence as part of an optional completeness proffer, and despite realizing such mistake, did not object or seek other curative measures. The trial court granted a new trial for plaintiffs in a reasonably specific order. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court granted mandamus, finding that appellate courts may review such orders on the merits and requiring the trial court here to enter judgment on the verdict.
Richard King died in an accident while driving his Toyota 4Runner. His family sued Toyota, among others, alleging that a defective seat belt caused King’s death. The deposition testimony of Officer Coon, the emergency call responder, revealed that King was not wearing his seatbelt at the time of the accident. Believing such testimony to be objectionable, plaintiffs filed a motion in limine to exclude portions of that testimony, which the trial court granted. Defendant complied with the limine order and offered a redacted part of the officer’s testimony at trial. At the end of that offering, plaintiffs’ counsel requested to read in additional testimony left out of defendant’s offer, as a matter of optional completeness. Plaintiffs’ counsel then inadvertently read in some of the very testimony he had asked to be excluded by the limine motion. Plaintiffs’ counsel made no request to strike the testimony, object, or move for a mistrial. Defendant then repeatedly referenced that damaging testimony, including in closing argument. After a defense verdict, plaintiffs moved for a new trial on defendant’s use of that evidence in closing. The trial court granted the new trial on the grounds that the closing argument contained evidence outside the record and the new trial was a sanction for Toyota’s violation of the limine order. Because the new trial order was specific as to its grounds, the court of appeals denied Toyota’s request for a writ of mandamus.
The issues before the Supreme Court were (1) whether it or any appellate court could assess the merits of a new trial order on mandamus, and (2) whether it was an abuse of discretion in this instance to grant a new trial. Relying on In re Columbia, the court noted that a new trial order must be specific as to its reasons and legally appropriate, and an order not meeting those standards may be corrected through mandamus relief. Additionally, the court recognized that Columbia’s holding would be meaningless without the reviewing court’s having the ability to assess the merits of the new trial order: “Simply articulating understandable, reasonably specific, and legally appropriate reasons is not enough; the reasons must be valid and correct.” Here, where the trial court record contradicted the court’s new trial order, it was an abuse of discretion to grant a new trial. The damaging evidence was offered by plaintiffs’ counsel, was in the record, and any error regarding its admission was waived for failure to object. Finally, the court held that the trial court abused its discretion in sanctioning Toyota because its reference to evidence plaintiffs offered was appropriate. The Supreme Court therefore ordered the trial court to withdraw the new trial order and render judgment on the verdict.
