In re Arturo Perez and Texas Materials Group, Inc.

Summary

The Fourth Court of Appeals of Texas conditionally granted mandamus relief after concluding that the trial court abused its discretion by setting aside a unanimous defense verdict and granting a new trial. The appellate court held that the parties' right-of-way stipulation did not establish negligence as a matter of law, that the evidence regarding the traffic officer and proximate cause was disputed, and that the asserted evidentiary grounds were either unpreserved or contradicted by the record. The trial court was directed to vacate its new-trial order and enter judgment based on the jury's verdict.

Holdings

1. A new-trial order cannot stand when its articulated factual basis is contradicted by the trial record and its legal premise is invalid. The trial court clearly abused its discretion by characterizing the evidence as overwhelming and undisputed when the evidence on negligence and proximate cause was sharply disputed.
2. A stipulation that the plaintiff's vehicle had the right-of-way, together with the occurrence of a collision, does not establish negligence as a matter of law and does not establish proximate cause or causation of a particular injury.
3. A new-trial order may not rest on alleged trial error that was not preserved. When evidence is admitted without a contemporaneous objection, any error is waived and cannot support a new trial; a motion in limine alone generally does not preserve error.
4. A party may not obtain a new trial based on evidence that the party itself introduced or developed, or to which the party later allowed the same or similar evidence without objection.
5. Relators lack an adequate remedy by appeal when an erroneous new-trial order sets aside a unanimous jury verdict and forces the parties to undergo a second trial.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court clearly abused its discretion by granting a new trial on the ground that the jury's verdict was contrary to the great weight and preponderance of the evidence.
2. Whether the right-of-way stipulation established Perez's negligence or proximate cause as a matter of law.
3. Whether alleged evidentiary error concerning an undesignated traffic officer could support a new-trial order when Rios did not make a contemporaneous substantive objection and introduced or developed the same evidence.
4. Whether relators lacked an adequate remedy by appeal from the erroneous new-trial order.

Disposition

writ_granted