Opinion ID: 1572837
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: court of appeals' factual sufficiency review

Text: The Jones Act provides a cause of action for maritime workers injured by an employer's negligence. Federal law provides that a party asserting an admiralty action may bring the action in state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1333(1). When a state court hears an admiralty case, that court occupies essentially the same position occupied by a federal court sitting in diversity: the state court must apply substantive federal maritime law but follow state procedure. See Texaco Ref. & Mkt. Inc. v. Estate of Dau Van Tran, 808 S.W.2d 61, 64 (Tex.1991); see also General Chem. Corp. v. De La Lastra, 852 S.W.2d 916, 920 (Tex.1993). Under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA), a related statute, the causation burden is not the common law proximate cause standard. Rather, the causation burden is whether the proof justifies with reason the conclusion that employer negligence played any part, even the slightest, in producing the injury for which the claimant seeks damages. Rogers v. Missouri Pac. R.R., 352 U.S. 500, 506-07, 77 S.Ct. 443, 448-49, 1 L.Ed.2d 493 (1957); Landry v. Oceanic Contractors Inc., 731 F.2d 299, 302 (5 th Cir.1984). This burden has been termed featherweight. See Johnson v. Offshore Exp., Inc., 845 F.2d 1347, 1352 (5 th Cir.1988); Smith v. Trans-World Drilling Co., 772 F.2d 157, 162 (5 th Cir.1985); see also Sentilles v. Inter-Caribbean Shipping Corp., 361 U.S. 107, 80 S.Ct. 173, 4 L.Ed.2d 142 (1959). The Jones Act expressly incorporates FELA and the case law developing that statute. See Ferguson v. Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc., 352 U.S. 521, 77 S.Ct. 457, 1 L.Ed.2d 511 (1957). Thus, the causation standard under the Jones Act is the same as that under FELA. See American Dredging Co. v. Miller, 510 U.S. 443, 456, 114 S.Ct. 981, 989-90, 127 L.Ed.2d 285 (1994); see also Brown & Root, Inc. v. Wade, 510 S.W.2d 408, 410 (Tex.Civ.App.Houston [14 th Dist.] 1974, writ ref'd n.r.e.).

Texas courts have long recognized that in addition to the burden of proof being less stringent, the standard of appellate review in a Jones Act case is also less stringent than under the common law. See Texas & Pac. Ry. v. Roberts, 481 S.W.2d 798, 800 (Tex.1972); Brown & Root, Inc., 510 S.W.2d at 410. As with the law on causation, FELA's standard of appellate review applies in Jones Act cases. See Ferguson, 352 U.S. at 523, 77 S.Ct. at 458. Thus, the purpose of the Jones Act standard of review is to vest the jury with complete discretion on factual issues about liability. See Rogers, 352 U.S. at 506-07, 77 S.Ct. at 448-49. Once the appellate court determines that some evidence about which reasonable minds could differ supports the verdict, the appellate court's review is complete. See Roberts, 481 S.W.2d at 800 (citing Lavender v. Kurn, 327 U.S. 645, 66 S.Ct. 740, 90 L.Ed. 916 (1946)). Essentially, a Texas court of appeals may not conduct a traditional factual sufficiency review of a jury's liability finding under the Texas weight and preponderance standard. See Roberts, 481 S.W.2d at 801; see also Brown & Root, Inc., 510 S.W.2d at 410. Rather, courts of appeals must apply the less stringent federal standard of review.
Texas courts of appeal have the power to review excessiveness of damages and to order remittitur in FELA actions and, by implication, in Jones Act cases as well. See Sweet v. Port Terminal R.R., 653 S.W.2d 291, 294-95 (Tex.1983); c.f. Nobles v. Southern Pac. Transp. Co., 731 S.W.2d 697, 699 (Tex. AppHouston [14 th Dist.] 1987, writ ref'd n.r.e.); s ee also Nairn v. National R.R. Passenger Corp., 837 F.2d 565, 566 (2d Cir. 1988). The appellate court must make its own detailed appraisal of the evidence bearing on damages. Nairn, 837 F.2d at 567, (quoting Grunenthal v. Long Island R.R., 393 U.S. 156, 159, 89 S.Ct. 331, 333, 21 L.Ed.2d 309 (1968)). The standard of review for an excessive damages complaint is factual sufficiency of the evidence. See Rose v. Doctors Hosp., 801 S.W.2d 841, 847-48 (Tex.1990); Pope v. Moore, 711 S.W.2d 622, 624 (Tex. 1986). The court of appeals should employ the same test for determining excessive damages as for any factual sufficiency question. See Pope, 711 S.W.2d at 624. When considering a factual sufficiency challenge to a jury's verdict, courts of appeals must consider and weigh all of the evidence, not just that evidence which supports the verdict. See Ortiz v. Jones, 917 S.W.2d 770, 772 (Tex. 1996); Lofton v. Texas Brine Corp., 720 S.W.2d 804, 805 (Tex.1986). A court of appeals can set aside the verdict only if it is so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence that the verdict is clearly wrong and unjust. See Ortiz, 917 S.W.2d at 772; Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175, 176 (Tex.1986). The court of appeals is not a fact finder. Accordingly, the court of appeals may not pass upon the witnesses' credibility or substitute its judgment for that of the jury, even if the evidence would clearly support a different result. See Pool v. Ford Motor Co., 715 S.W.2d 629, 634 (Tex.1986). If the court of appeals determines that the evidence supports the jury's verdict, it is not required to detail all the evidence supporting the judgment when it affirms the trial court's judgment for actual damages. See Ellis County State Bank v. Keever, 888 S.W.2d 790, 794 (Tex.1994). On the other hand, when reversing a trial court's judgment for factual insufficiency, the court of appeals must detail all the evidence relevant to the issue and clearly state why the jury's finding is factually insufficient or so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence that it is manifestly unjust. See Keever, 888 S.W.2d at 794; Pool, 715 S.W.2d at 635. The court of appeals must explain how the contrary evidence greatly outweighs the evidence supporting the verdict. See Keever, 888 S.W.2d at 794; Pool, 715 S.W.2d at 635. Because the question of whether damages are excessive and that a remittitur is appropriate is a factual determination made final in the court of appeals, this Court lacks jurisdiction to review such findings. TEX. CONST. art. V, § 6; TEX. GOV'T CODE, § 22.225(a); Akin v. Dahl, 661 S.W.2d 917, 921 (Tex.1983); Sweet, 653 S.W.2d at 295.
Maritime concedes that the Jones Act imposes a reduced burden in proving a defendant's liability, but asserts the Act does not relieve a plaintiff of the burden of proving damages by a preponderance of the evidence. Initially, Maritime contends that by submitting the damages question based upon a preponderance of the evidence, Ellis waived any argument that a featherweight standard applies to the court of appeals' review of damages. See De La Lastra, 852 S.W.2d at 916. Maritime further argues that both federal and Texas appellate courts have reviewed damage awards for factual sufficiency and excessiveness using traditional standards of review in Jones Act cases. See Nairn, 837 F.2d at 566; Sweet, 653 S.W.2d at 294-95. Maritime asserts that the court of appeals used the wrong standard when it reviewed the actual damages award in this case. We disagree. As explained below, the court of appeals properly analyzed this case in the context of Maritime's point of error and argument in that court. The record shows that during trial, Ellis offered the testimony of five expert medical doctors, four of whom had examined and treated Ellis. Maritime did not challenge the testimony of any of the five experts at trial. All five expert witnesses testified that Ellis's severe and lengthy exposure to Diazinon caused his prolonged neural damages. They expressed their opinions on bases ranging from reasonable medical probability to without a doubt. In essence, all five experts testified that Ellis's prolonged exposure to excessive levels of Diazinon due to Maritime's negligence caused the long-term effects of delayed neurotoxicity. Maritime presented three medical doctor experts, only one of whom had treated Ellis. These three experts testified that Ellis's injuries were not a delayed effect of his Diazinon exposure. The jury answered yes to the question of whether Maritime's negligence played any part, even the slightest, in producing injury or illness to Ellis. The jury then found, based on a preponderance of the evidence, that $8,576,000 in actual damages would fairly and reasonably compensate Ellis for the injuries or illnesses resulting from the occurrence in question. The trial court rendered judgment for Ellis on the jury's verdict for the actual damages together with exemplary and punitive damages and prejudgment interest. In the court of appeals, Maritime contended the trial court erred in denying its motion for new trial because factually insufficient evidence supported the jury's finding that Ellis suffered $8,576,000 in actual damages, and because the amount was excessive. However, as the court of appeals recognized, Maritime's argument to that court was not about the amount of actual damages the jury awarded, but about causation. The court of appeals observed: Appellant concedes that appellee suffered short-term effects from the exposure to Diazinon and in effect, that overexposure to Diazinon is toxic to humans and can cause damage to the nervous system on some temporary basis. Thus, appellant does not contest damages for the medical treatment appellee received in New Orleans in 1982 or for the loss of two days of work. Appellant does contest damages awarded for appellee's claim of delayed and permanent neurotoxic damage on the ground that appellee's expert testimony was speculative and not based on reasonable medical probability. Essentially, appellant's attack is directed at the issue of causation as to the delayed and permanent damage found by the jury based on the circumstantial and expert evidence before them. 886 S.W.2d at 783 (emphasis added). Because Maritime contended there was factually insufficient evidence to support the damages award, the court of appeals considered all the evidence both in favor of and contrary to the judgment. The court of appeals detailed the material testimony of all eight expertsfive for Ellis and three for Maritime. After doing so, the court of appeals first concluded that the evidence more than satisfied the Jones Act standard for causation. 886 S.W.2d at 791. The court of appeals stated that sufficient evidence justified the jury's finding that Maritime's admitted negligence in exposing Ellis to extreme levels of a dangerous pesticide did play a part in producing the injury for which the damages were sought and awarded. 886 S.W.2d at 791. In addition to concluding that the evidence satisfied the featherweight burden of negligence and causation in Jones Act cases, the court of appeals also concluded that the evidence was sufficient under the higher standard of proof for causation under Texas common law. The court of appeals followed applicable law when it analyzed Maritime's challenge to causation instead of damages and when it reviewed the amount of the damages award under traditional factual sufficiency review. See Rogers, 352 U.S. at 506-07, 77 S.Ct. at 448-49; Nairn, 837 F.2d at 566; Landry, 731 F.2d at 302; Sweet, 653 S.W.2d at 294-95. Accordingly, we conclude that the court of appeals followed the appropriate standard of review in analyzing Maritime's claims. Again, this Court has no jurisdiction to decide whether the court of appeals reached the correct resultthat is whether the actual damages award was excessive. See Akin, 661 S.W.2d at 921. We reject Maritime's first argument.