What happens to nuclear verdicts on appeal? The El Paso Court of Appeals recently issued a sobering opinion, overruling a $7 million verdict.

In Claxton v. Rayner, Claxton’s windshield was hit by a portion of the load that Rayner was transporting on behalf of his employer, Even Better Logistics (EBL).   While Rayner was transporting an oversized load from Dayton to Abilene, he took the wrong exit and ended up on a route that was not part of his TxDOT required route.  The TxDOT route was selected because he was transporting an oversized load. Rayner allegedly did not realize he was on the wrong route until it was too late and ended up crashing into an overpass that was not tall enough to accommodate the load. As Rayner crashed into the overpass, a portion of the load he was transporting fell off and broke Claxton’s windshield. Claxton alleged he sustained both personal injuries and property damage.

Claxton asserted claims against Rayner, EBL, and Croom, the 50% owner and managing-member of EBL, for negligence, negligence per se, single business enterprise/joint venture, and gross negligence.  The Claxton asserted additional claims against EBL for respondeat superior and negligent entrustment against and against Croom for respondeat superior. For all of their claims, Claxton sought past and future physical pain, emotional suffering, mental anguish, and disfigurement, future medical expenses, past lost wages, future loss of earning capacity, past and future physical impairment and loss of enjoyment of life, loss of consortium, loss of household services, and exemplary damages.

Trial was held in Austin, and the jury awarded $7,396,314 to Claxton. Of the verdict, $121,676 was awarded for past lost earning capacity, $90,083 for future lost earning capacity, $1,049,555 for future medical expenses, $35,000 for future loss of household services, and $6,100,000 for exemplary damages. The jury did not award any amounts for the other categories of damages sought.

The jury apportioned 15% percent of responsibility for economic damages Rayner and Croom, each, and 70% to EBL. However, because joint and several liability applies in Texas for a party found to be more than 50% liable, EBL was liable for the full amount of economic damages amount. Additionally, the jury apportioned the exemplary award amount, awarding $100,000 against Rayner, $1,000,000 against Croom, and $5 million against EBL. Because of the cap on exemplary damages under Texas statute, EBL’s liability for exemplary damages was limited to $2,592,628.

Following the issuance of the judgment, all three defendants filed a motion to disregard and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and a motion for new trial. The essence of the motions was that the defendants did not breach any duty to Claxton, and in the case of Croom, did not owe a duty to the Claxton. In August 2022, the El Paso Court of Appeals rendered a take-nothing judgment in favor of Croom, rendered judgment in favor of EBL on Claxton’s claims of EBL’s independent negligence, and rendered judgment in favor of Rayner for Claxton’s gross negligence claim. The Court ordered a new trial on all other claims.

The Court held that Croom did not owe a duty to Claxton and therefore, the evidence was insufficient to support a finding of negligence, negligence per se, and gross negligence.  The only evidence Claxton presented at trial to support the negligence allegation against Croom was Croom’s testimony that she took responsibility for the accident and felt part of the blame. The Court stated that the testimony was insufficient to support the award against Croom.

The El Paso Court also held that insufficient evidence supported the award against EBL for failing to maintain its trucks as Claxton failed to show how the maintenance, or lack thereof, caused of the accident. Although Claxton presented evidence that the trucks and records were negligently maintained, he did not produce sufficient evidence, primarily expert testimony, that the issues with the truck at the time of the incident were the cause of the truck veering off-route and hitting the overpass. Lastly, the Court held that EBL could not be grossly negligent because there Claxton failed to provide sufficient evidence to support the finding that EBL negligently hired, trained, or supervised Rayner, or negligent maintained the truck.

Finally, the El Paso Court of Appeals held that the award against Rayner for gross negligence was unsustainable.  The Court found that Rayner’s testimony was not an interpretation that a reasonable jury could use to support a judgment for punitive damages.

Taken together, the Court of Appeal’s opinion gutted Claxton’s punitive damage award comprising over 80% of the original verdict, demonstrating that courts of appeals still provide important safeguards against nuclear verdicts.

The attorneys in our Dallas and Austin are available to answer any questions you may have about preserving error at trial to support a successful appeal of unfortunate verdicts. Please contact us at info@gstexlaw.com if you have any questions.

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 a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed attorney.

©Gerstle Snelson, LLP 2022.  All rights reserved.  Any unauthorized 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.