On August 30, 2013, the Texas Supreme Court expanded the scope
of appellate review of new trial orders, holding that an appellate
court may conduct merit-based review of a trial court's stated
reasons for granting a new trial.1
The ruling arose from a rollover case against Toyota Motor
Company. The driver of a Toyota 4Runner was ejected in a
rollover accident. His family sued, alleging a design defect
in the vehicle's seatbelts. The jury found for Toyota, but
the trial court granted a new trial because Toyota's lawyers
allegedly referred to inadmissible evidence during closing argument
that the driver was not wearing his seatbelt at the time of the
accident.
Toyota sought a writ of mandamus from the court of appeals, but
the intermediate appellate court did not believe it had authority
to review the merits of the reasons stated in the new trial
order. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that appellate
courts have the power to review the substance of a trial
court's order for new trial.
The Supreme Court first reviewed its recent jurisprudence
narrowing a trial court's ability to set aside jury
verdicts. In 2008, the Court held that a trial court must
explain with reasonable specificity why it has set aside a jury
verdict and granted a new trial.2 More recently, it
decided that a new trial could be granted only for valid reasons
and an order that gave four alternative reasons for granting a new
trial, including "in the interest of justice" left open
the possibility that "in the interest of justice" was the
sole reason.3 This case was the next step in the
progression: if a trial court's order states its reason
for granting a new trial and the reason is legally appropriate and
specific, may an appellate court nevertheless determine whether the
stated reason is actually true?
The Supreme Court concluded that it could because
"transparency without accountability is meaningless":
Without such an explanation, parties in the case can only speculate about why the court ostensibly circumvented a critical constitutional right. The parties—and the public—are entitled to know why the trial court believes an injustice would occur if the jury's verdict were to stand.
If, despite conforming to the procedual requirements, a trial
court's stated reasons are not supported by the underlying
record, a new trial order is an abuse of discretion reviewable by
mandamus.
Because a review of the record in the Toyota case showed
that a statement from a police officer about whether the driver
wore his seatbelt was in evidence, it was appropriate for
Toyota's counsel to mention it in closing
arguments. Because the record squarely conflicted with the
trial court's express reason for granting a new trial, the new
trial order could not stand.
Footnotes
1 In re Toyota Motor Sales USA, Inc., 2013 Tex. LEXIS 673 (Aug. 30, 2013).
2 In re Columbia Med. Ctr. of Las Colinas Subsidiary, L.P., 290 S.W.3d 204 (Tex. 2009).
3 In re United Scaffolding Inc., 377 S.W.3d 685 (Tex. 2012).
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
