The Dallas Court of Appeals, in an opinion issued Thursday, preserved a $213 million judgment rendered against Toyota Motor Corp. in 2018, handing a huge win to plaintiffs.
In 2-1 opinion, the majority validated a Dallas County jury’s verdict that found Toyota was consciously indifferent to fixing seatback failure issues in its vehicles and as a result, subjected two young children to permanent harm that could have been avoided.
The plaintiffs, Dallas couple Benjamin and Kristi Reavis, sued Toyota in 2016 after a car rear-ended their 2002 Lexus ES 300, resulting in permanent brain damage with their two young children, 9-year-old Emily Reavis and 7-year-old Owen Reavis. The jury awarded the family a $242 million verdict after hearing three weeks of evidence in Dallas District Judge Dale Tillery’s courtroom. Judge Tillery later reduced the amount to $213 million.
In a 78-page opinion, the court of appeals found that the evidence supports “more than one reasonable conclusion on whether Toyota’s product is unreasonably dangerous,” that the jury “properly exercised its prerogative” in weighing the evidence, and that the jury’s punitive damages award was not excessive.
The appeals court did, however, reverse the liability of Toyota subsidiary, Toyota Motor Sales, which was on the hook for 5% of the judgment. But as the majority and dissenter Justice David Schenck noted in both opinions, the issue is essentially moot since Toyota Motor is jointly and severally liable for the damages awarded against both Toyota entities because the jury put Toyota Motor on the hook for 90% of the liability, well above the 50% threshold.
“We conclude the jury’s award is not excessive. The nature of the wrong in this case is the permanent severe traumatic brain injury to two young children,” the opinion, written by Justice Erin Nowell says. “The character of the conduct and culpability of the wrongdoer support the award of punitive damages. Toyota Motor admitted the seriousness of the harm here, but argued the probability was low. Yet the jury heard evidence that collisions as severe as this one occur every 6 minutes 48 seconds.”
In his dissent, Justice Schenck said he disagreed because he did not believe the Reavises presented enough evidence supporting the defective design.
“While the Reavises presented some evidence that Toyota could have designed their 2002 Lexus ES 300 in a way that would have reduced the risk of the injuries in this accident, I do not believe they produced evidence sufficient to show the existing design was defective or that a safer alternative design was available,” Justice Schenck wrote.
The case went to oral argument before the panel last April via Zoom. Marie Yeates of Vinson & Elkins handled oral argument for the Reavises, while Haynes and Boone’s Anne Johnson led Toyota’s oral argument.
The panel also included Justice Robbie Partida-Kipness.
Yeates and did not immediately respond to a request for comment. In a statement, Toyota indicated it would appeal to the Supreme Court of Texas.
In a statement, Frank Branson, the Reavis family’s lead lawyer at trial, said his clients are “gratified” by the appeals court’s “validation of the actions of the jury and the trial judge.
“This case was a needless tragedy for a special family, and we appreciate the Court’s clear understanding of the issues, the evidence, the arguments, and the verdict. The court’s opinion was well-reasoned and well-written,” Branson said.
“Toyota is committed to providing its customers with safe and reliable transportation, and we sympathize with anyone in an accident involving one of our vehicles,” the statement said. “While we respect the 2-1 decision of the Court, we continue to believe that the judgment is entirely improper given the undisputed facts that the 2002 Lexus ES300 meets or exceeds federal safety standards and that the accident itself was caused by a distracted driver whose SUV rear-ended the Reavis’ car at nearly 50 mph. This case presents a number of important legal issues in Texas, as noted by the dissenting judge who found the plaintiffs’ claims “unsustainable.” We look forward to presenting our case to the Texas Supreme Court for consideration.”
In addition to Branson, the Reavises’ trial team included Dallas attorneys Debbie Branson, Eric Stahl and Chip Brooker. The appellate team at V&E also included Harry Reasoner and Michael Heidler.
In addition to Johnson, lawyers for Toyota on the appeal, included Haynes and Boone’s Nina Cortell and Jason Jordan, Gibson Dunn’s Allyson Ho and Brad Hubbard and Morgan Lewis’ Winstol Carter and Claire Kugler. At trial, Toyota was represented by Barnes & Thornburg’s Victor Vital and Elizabeth Brandon (now at Reed Smith) and Bowman and Brooke’s Jim Halbrooks and Suzanne Swaner.