Opinion ID: 379106
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: exemplary damages under texas law

Text: 22 In somewhat of a strange dichotomy the jury below found plaintiff's decedent had assumed the risk of using appellee's product, while at the same time awarding the plaintiffs ten million dollars ($10,000,000.00) in exemplary damages. 23 The availability of exemplary damages for wrongful death flows from Article 16, § 26 of the Constitution of the State of Texas: 24 Every person, corporation, or company, that may commit a homicide, through a wilful act, or omission, or gross neglect, shall be responsible, in exemplary damages, to the surviving husband, widow, heirs of his or her body, or such of them as there may be . . . . Tex.Const. Art. 16, § 26. (emphasis added). 25 Trial and appellate courts have authority to supervise jury awards in such cases. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 50, 59. 26 While we agree that exemplary damages may be appropriate in certain instances, we narrow our focus to the requirements that the defendant's acts be wilful, gross or manifest conscious indifference. 27 Appellants primary argument in this area concerns the trial court's use of language contained in Sheffield Division, Armco Steel Corp. v. Jones, 376 S.W.2d 825 (Tex.1964), and this court's decision following Sheffield in Woolard v. Mobil Pipeline Co., 479 F.2d 557 (5th Cir. 1973). In particular, the trial court focused on language from Sheffield concerning a complete absence of care, Sheffield, supra, at p. 829 and whether Freightliner acted with an intent which approximates a fixed purpose to bring about this injury. Id., Maxey v. Freightliner Corp., 450 F.Supp. 955, 964 (N.D.Tex.1978). Appellants contention is that these cases are in effect outdated by more recent Texas authority negating a requirement of a fixed purpose to injure. Appellants cite McPhearson v. Sullivan, 463 S.W.2d 174 (Tex.1971) and Harbin v. Seale, 461 S.W.2d 591 (Tex.1970) for the proposition that one must look to the surrounding facts and circumstances in determining the propriety of exemplary damages. Harbin, supra, at p. 593 and McPhearson, supra, at p. 176. Were we to accept appellant's argument that such is now the test, we fail to glean from our overview any support for their claim to exemplary compensation. 28 Appellants would have us read Hernandez v. Smith, 552 F.2d 142 (5th Cir. 1977), as providing the strong support for their right to an exemplary award. While such authority may remove any requirement that the defendant act with purposeful conduct, a closer scrutiny reveals the following at page 143: 29 Under Texas law, there cannot be that conscious indifference to the welfare of others constituting gross negligence for purposes of exemplary damages if it is shown that defendant exercised even slight care. 30 We are unable to discern from our reading of the record evidence of appellee's failure to use even slight care. In light of the aforementioned, we support the actions of the trial judge on this issue. 31 The trial court concluded that Freightliner complied with industry custom, based upon evidence that no commercially produced truck tractor in the United States had fuel tanks located within the frame rails, 2 and that no commercially produced vehicle in the United States used fuel bladders. 3 Appellants contend that this evidence is insufficient to support the trial court's conclusion of compliance with industry-wide custom. Maxey v. Freightliner Corp., 450 F.Supp. 955, 963 (N.D.Tex.1978). We disagree.