In Re E.I. Du Pont de Nemours and Co. (Tex. 2009),
No. 08-0625 (Tex. Jul. 3, 2009)(Johnson)
(grant of new trial following jury verdict requires adequate explanation)(mandamus granted in absbestos
case to direct trial court judge to provide specific reason(s))
THE GIST: At issue in this mandamus proceeding is whether the trial court abused its
discretion by disregarding the jury verdict and granting a new trial without giving its
reasons for doing so. Based on In re Columbia Medical Center of Las Colinas, ___ S.
W.3d ___ (Tex. 2009), we hold that it did and grant relief.
IN RE E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; from Jefferson County;
9th district (09-08-00318-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 07-24-08 Opinion of the Ninth Court of Appeals)
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.8(c), without hearing oral argument, the Court
conditionally grants in part and denies in part the petition for writ of mandamus.
Justice Johnson delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justice Hecht, Justice Wainwright, Justice
Brister, and Justice Willett joined. [3-page opinion in pdf]
Justice O'Neill delivered a dissenting opinion, in which Chief Justice Jefferson, Justice Medina, and Justice
Green joined. [1-page pdf opinion referring to dissent in other case involving the same issue]
Electronic Briefs in Tex. 2009 No. 08-0625 IN RE E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND CO..
════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
In Re E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company (Tex. 2009)
════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Justice Johnson delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justice Hecht, Justice Wainwright,
Justice Brister, and Justice Willett joined.
Justice O’Neill filed a dissenting opinion, in which Chief Justice Jefferson, Justice Medina, and
Justice Green joined.
At issue in this mandamus proceeding is whether the trial court abused its discretion by
disregarding the jury verdict and granting a new trial without giving its reasons for doing so. Based
on In re Columbia Medical Center of Las Colinas, ___ S.W.3d ___ (Tex. 2009), we hold that it did
and grant relief.
Willis Whisnant’s estate and beneficiaries (collectively, Whisnant) sued E.I. du Pont de Nemours
and Company (DuPont) for wrongful death. Whisnant asserted that Willis was exposed to asbestos
fibers while working for DuPont, which caused him to develop mesothelioma. After a five-week trial,
the jury failed to find DuPont negligent and the trial judge entered a take nothing judgment.
Whisnant filed a motion for new trial. The grounds were (1) the verdict was contrary to the weight of
the evidence, and (2) some jurors may have read newspaper articles about the trial that Whisnant
contended were biased toward DuPont. The trial court granted Whisnant’s motion for new trial but
did not state a reason for doing so.
DuPont sought, but was denied, a writ of mandamus from the court of appeals. In this Court,
DuPont argues that the trial court abused its discretion by (1) granting a new trial without stating a
reason for disregarding the jury verdict, and (2) granting the new trial motion in any event.
In In re Columbia, we held that a trial court acted arbitrarily and abused its discretion by not
specifically and in a reasonable manner setting out the reasons it disregarded a jury verdict and
granted a new trial. Id. at ___. We also held that the relator did not have an adequate remedy by
appeal. Id. at ___. We granted mandamus relief directing the trial court to set out its reasons for
disregarding the jury verdict. Id. Based on our holding in In re Columbia, DuPont is entitled to relief.
In addition to seeking the reasons for the trial court’s disregarding the jury verdict in its favor,
DuPont asks that we review the grounds Whisnant asserted in his motion for new trial to determine
whether granting his motion on any of those grounds would have been an abuse of discretion. We
decline to do so. We do not presume the trial court limited its consideration of grounds for granting
the motion to only the grounds asserted in the motion; it may have granted the motion on other
grounds. See id. at ___. Accordingly, we deny, without prejudice, any relief beyond directing the
trial court to specify its reasons for granting the new trial.
Without hearing oral argument, we conditionally grant DuPont’s petition for writ of mandamus. See
Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(c). The trial court is directed to specify the reasons for which it disregarded the
jury verdict and ordered a new trial. We are confident the trial court will comply, and the writ will
issue only if it fails to do so.
________________________________________
Phil Johnson
Justice
OPINION DELIVERED: July 3, 2009
════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
In Re E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Co. (Tex. 2009) (O'Neill, dissenting)
════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Justice O’Neill, joined by Chief Justice Jefferson, Justice Medina, and Justice Green, dissenting.
For the reasons expressed today in my dissenting opinion in In re Columbia Medical Center of
Las Colinas, Cause No. 06-0416, I respectfully dissent.
___________________________________
Harriet O’Neill
Justice
OPINION DELIVERED: July 3, 2009