Case Name: In re UNITED SCAFFOLDING, INC.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 2009-04-16
Citations: 287 S.W.3d 274
Docket Number: No. 09-09-00098-CV
Parties: In re UNITED SCAFFOLDING, INC.
Judges: Before McKEITHEN, C.J., GAULTNEY and KREGER, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 287
Pages: 274–277

Head Matter:
In re UNITED SCAFFOLDING, INC.
No. 09-09-00098-CV.
Court of Appeals of Texas, Beaumont.
Submitted on March 26, 2009.
Decided April 16, 2009.
Kathleen M. Kennedy, Mehaffy Weber, Beaumont, for relator.
Timothy W. Ferguson, Lauren E. Marshall, Beaumont, for real party in interest.
Before McKEITHEN, C.J., GAULTNEY and KREGER, JJ.

Opinion:
OPINION
STEVE McKEITHEN, Chief Justice.
In this petition for writ of mandamus, relator United Scaffolding, Inc. contends the trial court abused its discretion by granting a motion for new trial filed by James Levine and Lisa Levine after a jury rendered a verdict in the underlying proceeding. The trial court granted the motion and ordered a new trial "in the interest of justice and fairness."
United Scaffolding contends the trial court abused its discretion by granting a motion for new trial "in the interest of justice and fairness" without identifying the particular injustice or wrongdoing that occurred in the case. In them motion for new trial, the Levines challenged the factual sufficiency of the zero damages awarded by the jury for physical pain and suffering, mental anguish, physical impairment, past medical care, and loss of earning capacity where James Levine had an objective injury and the jury awarded $178,000 for future medical care. The Le-vines also argued that the jury's failure to award damages for pain and suffering, mental anguish, physical impairment, and loss of consortium caused by the defendant's negligence presents a definite injustice even if the award of zero damages on those categories of damages is not against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence.
A new trial may be granted for good cause shown in a party's motion and may be granted when the damages are manifestly too small. See Tex.R. Civ. P. 320. A motion for new trial must identify each point relied upon in such a way that the objection can be clearly identified and understood by the court. See Tex.R. Civ. P. 321. In this case, the Levines' motion for new trial clearly identified their specific complaint that the zero damages findings are manifestly too small and the trial court's reason for granting the new trial is evident from the face of the motion granted by the trial court.
Generally, "an appellate court will not review by mandamus an action of the trial court granting a new trial while it still has jurisdiction of the cause. The discretion and judgment of the trial court in granting a new trial cannot be controlled or directed by mandamus." Johnson v. Court of Civil Appeals for the Seventh Supreme Judicial Dist. of Tex., 162 Tex. 613, 350 S.W.2d 330, 331 (Tex.1961). In this case, the mandamus record does not reveal a denial of due process and United Scaffolding does not demonstrate that the trial court acted outside the limits of its discretion. See Johnson v. Fourth Court of Appeals, 700 S.W.2d 916, 918 (Tex.1985); In re E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Co., No. 09-08-318-CV, 2008 WL 2838776, *1 (Tex.App.-Beaumont July 24, 2008, mancl. filed). Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.
PETITION DENIED.