In May 2024, the Texas Supreme Court in Alonzo v. John overturned a $12 million jury verdict because Plaintiffs’ counsel made incurable arguments to the jury. The personal injury case stemmed from a 2012 car accident where Defendant, Robert Alonzo, rear ended a couple in his tractor trailer.  One of Plaintiffs in the case was an African American woman.  Alonzo and his employer, New Prime Inc., admitted liability prior to trial.  As a result, the trial was simply to determine the amount of damages to be awarded to Plaintiffs.

At the 2020 trial, defense counsel argued that Lewis, an African American woman, should be awarded no more than $250,000.00.  Plaintiff’s counsel responded saying, “that’s not fair. Because it’s a woman, she should get less money? Because she’s African American, she should get less money? No. We’re going to fight because we believe in the jury system.”  Defendants said the comments were improper and requested a mistrial.  The trial judge conceded that the comments were baseless, and the defendants did nothing to give the impression they believed Lewis’ race or gender warranted a smaller recovery. Despite this acknowledge, the trial judge overruled the mistrial request. In February 2020, the jury awarded $12 million to John and $450,000.00 to Lewis.  Defendants appealed on grounds that both plaintiffs were overcompensated and in 2022 the appellate court affirmed the award.

In 2024, the Supreme Court overturned the award on the basis that the comments were an incurable argument and warranted a new trial.  The Court noted that an incurable argument is rare, as typically harm from an improper statement can be cured by a jury charge or retraction of the argument.  However, according to the Court, sometimes a statement is so “inflammatory and prejudicial” that it cannot be cured.  In such cases, a new trial is warranted.  The question is “whether the argument, considered in its proper setting, was reasonably calculated to cause such prejudice to the opposing litigant that a withdrawal by counsel or an instruction by the court, or both, could not eliminate the probability that it resulted in an improper verdict.”  The Court further advised that a reviewing court should evaluate the case as a whole to determine whether the complaining party provoked or invited the argument.

Here, the discussions of race and gender started during voir dire.  The Supreme Court acknowledged that its acceptable to question potential jury members on their biases.  Plaintiffs’ counsel brought up Lewis’s race and gender and implied that Defendants wanted to pay a lesser sum to Lewis because she was an African American woman.  The Court found there was nothing in the record to prompt these comments, asserting that discussions of Lewis’s gender and race started and ended with Plaintiffs’ counsel. The Supreme Court directly rejected the appellate court’s assertion that Plaintiffs’ counsel was merely asking the jury to check their own biases with these statements.  Instead, The Court ruled in favor of Defendants and ordered a new trial.  The Court published this opinion without even hearing oral arguments.

The attorneys in our Austin and Dallas office have significant experience trying and arbitrating cases, and are available to answer any questions you may have. Please contact us at info@gstexlaw.com.

Legal Disclaimers

This blog is made available by Gerstle Snelson, LLP for educational purposes and to provide general information about the law, only.  Neither this document nor the information contained in it is intended to constitute legal advice on any specific matter or of a general nature.  Use of the blog does not create an attorney-client relationship with Gerstle Snelson, LLP where one does not already exist with the firm.  This blog should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed attorney.

©Gerstle Snelson, LLP 2024.  All rights reserved.  Any authorized reprint or use of this material is prohibited.  No part of this blog may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage or retrieval system without the express written permission of Gerstle Snelson, LLP.