The Texas Supreme Court reversed a $12 million jury verdict on Friday because the plaintiffs’ lawyer during closing arguments injected the idea of racial and gender bias as a possible reason that the defendants wanted reduced amounts awarded to the plaintiffs, one of whom is an African American woman.
The justices said the plaintiffs’ lawyer injected “inflammatory argument that was uninvited and unprovoked” in his final comments to the jury that essentially accused opposing counsel of race and gender discrimination when no evidence of either existed in the trial record.
“At no point did the defendants or their counsel indicate any prejudice against [plaintiff] based on her race or gender, nor did they urge the jury to award her less money because of these immutable characteristics,” the justices wrote in a seven-page per curiam decision. “In fact, the topic of whether [plaintiff’s] race and gender should affect her damages award started and ended with plaintiffs’ counsel. Extreme and unsupported personal attacks on the opposition damage the judicial system itself by striking at the impartiality, equality, and fairness of justice rendered by the court.”
For four days in 2019, lawyers battled in a Houston courtroom over the evidence and arguments in a personal injury case about compensatory damages that should be awarded a couple whose sedan was rear-ended by a tractor-trailer on I-45.
Lawyers for the defendants, freight trucking New Prime and driver Roberto Alonzo, conceded liability. The only issue at trial was damages. The plaintiffs’ lawyers sought $12 million. The defense attorneys countered with a fraction of that amount.
During voir dire, the lawyer for the plaintiffs, Christine John and Christopher Lewis, first introduced the concept of race and gender bias when questioning potential jurors about their willingness to award as much as $12 million for “invisible” injuries, according to court documents.
While questioning a potential juror about whether a person’s income should factor into determining damages for pain and suffering, plaintiffs’ counsel cited studies that show women are awarded less damages than men for the same injuries. The lawyer then asked the prospective jury if it mattered that his client is African American, according to court records.
The members of the jury panel collectively answered “No.”
“There is nothing inherently improper in this line of questioning about potential juror bias,” the Texas justices wrote in Friday’s decision. “But with the jury having been sensitized to concerns about discriminatory damage awards, plaintiffs’ counsel circled back to the topic during closing argument with a pointed attack on opposing counsel.”
“They want to discount, and I don’t think you have to discount a human being’s life,” the plaintiff’s lawyer told jurors. “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.”
The Texas Supreme Court said counsel “in this personal-injury case crossed that line with an uninvited accusation of discriminatory animus” and that a new trial is warranted.
“Although no retraction or curative instruction was requested or given, none was required because the argument struck at the heart of the jury trial system, was designed to turn the jury against opposing counsel and his clients, and was incurable,” the Texas justices wrote. “An appeal to racial prejudice is a paradigmatic example of incurable jury argument. Such a tactic strikes at the fairness and equality of justice by inducing the jury to consider a party’s race as a factor in reaching its decision.”
“Alonzo and New Prime have met the high burden of demonstrating that the injection of new and inflammatory matters into the case through argument was incurably harmful,” the high court ruled.
The lawyers representing Alonzo and New Prime include Scott Brister of Hunton Andrews Kurth; Jessica Z. Barger, Bradley Snead, Natasha Taylor and Brittany Cooper of Wright Close & Barger; and Michael Magee and Richard Barton III of Mehaffey Webber.
The attorneys for John and Lewis include Andrew Bender of Andrews Myers; Jim Hart of Williams Hart; and Stephen Kherkher and Kevin Haynes of Kherkher Garcia.
Roberto Alonzo and New Prime v. Christine John and Christopher Lewis, Texas Supreme Court case number 22-0521.