Court Opinion

ID: 9394365
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-14 14:07:08.890344+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:59.216502
License: Public Domain

Supreme Court of Texas
                           ══════════
                            No. 20-0737
                           ══════════

               United Rentals North America, Inc.,
                             Petitioner,

                                  v.

Pamela Evans, Individually and as Administrator for the Estate
        of Clark Brandon Davis, and Dominic Jones,
                            Respondents

   ═══════════════════════════════════════
              On Petition for Review from the
       Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of Texas
   ═══════════════════════════════════════

                    Argued November 30, 2022

      JUSTICE BLACKLOCK delivered the opinion of the Court.

      JUSTICE LEHRMANN did not participate in the decision.

      Clark Davis died in a terrible traffic accident on Interstate 35
near Salado.   As Davis approached an overpass, a large piece of
equipment carried on a flatbed trailer struck the overpass. The falling
debris crushed Davis’s vehicle, and he died quickly. His estate, his
mother, and his son brought wrongful death and survival claims against
several defendants. The case proceeded to trial against one defendant,
United Rentals.
      During jury selection, counsel for the plaintiffs stated that “the
African-American female is the most favorable juror for this case.” This
announced preference was consistent with the plaintiffs’ peremptory
strikes of four white men and one Hispanic man. After a verdict for the
plaintiffs, the district court rendered a substantial money judgment,
which the court of appeals affirmed.
      We hold that a new trial is required. Most Batson claims ask
courts to engage in the speculative enterprise of inferring race-based
motivations from a record that is facially race neutral. This is the rare
case in which the record contains an admission of counsel’s preference
for jurors of a certain race. We last encountered such a record in Powers
v. Palacios, in which counsel admitted that a juror’s race “figured into”
the decision to strike her. 813 S.W.2d 489, 490 n.1 (Tex. 1991). We
summarily ordered a new trial in that case, and we do the same today.
      In so doing, we do not impugn the integrity of the counsel involved
in this case, who no doubt relied on conventional sources of insight into
jury-selection strategy, such as the advice of jury consultants or
feedback from focus groups. But consulting these sources for advice on
the color of an ideal juror cannot help but undermine our judicial
system’s obligation to provide race-neutral proceedings. This Court’s
precedent insists that jury selection—which routinely involves venire
panels as diverse as the population of Texas—must be conducted
without regard to race, to the greatest extent possible. The expression
on the record of a race-based preference, coupled with peremptory

                                   2
strikes consistent with the stated preference, compels the conclusion
that racial considerations impermissibly tainted the selection of this
jury. The district court could have remedied this problem prior to trial,
but it did not, so a new trial is required.
       In addition to resolving the jury-selection issue, we also hold that
United Rentals is not entitled to rendition of judgment on its argument
that it owed no common law tort duty to the plaintiffs. United Rentals
is entitled, however, to rendition of judgment on Davis’s survival claim.
The plaintiffs sought only pain-and-suffering damages for this claim,
and there was no evidence at trial that would allow a reasonable juror
to find that Davis suffered any such damages in the fleeting moments
between the onset of the accident and his sudden passing. The case is
remanded for a new trial on the plaintiffs’ remaining claims.
                                     I.
                                     A.
       United Rentals North America, Inc., is a nationwide equipment
rental company with over one hundred branch locations throughout
Texas. In March 2015, United Rentals decided to transport two large
pieces of its equipment from a San Antonio branch to an Irving branch.
One was a forklift with an attachment called a “boom arm.” The second
was a “Genie S-125 boom lift.” The forklift was eight feet, three inches
tall. It was considered an ordinary load that could be transported on an
ordinary flatbed trailer. The Genie S-125 boom lift was ten feet, one
inch tall. At this height, combined with the height of an ordinary flatbed
trailer, the boom lift was considered oversized and therefore required a

                                     3
special permit from the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles.1 Such a
permit would have specified a suitable route for safe passage. No permit
was obtained to transport the boom lift.          United Rentals’ own
“Transportation Guide” showed a maximum load height of eight feet, six
inches for an ordinary flatbed trailer. Safely transporting the boom lift
required a special trailer with a lower deck.
      Lares Trucking was hired to transport the forklift, and a company
called “Truckin By the Wild West” was hired to transport the oversized
load, the boom lift. Both loads were scheduled for transport on March
26, 2015. Lares driver Valentin Martinez arrived on the morning of
March 26th with a conventional flatbed trailer. He met with Manuel
Montez, a United Rentals operations manager.        Martinez, speaking
broken English, said he was there for a “boom.”         Montez, who is
bilingual, asked Martinez to provide a bill of lading (BOL) number, but
Martinez did not have one.      United Rentals requires a BOL before
equipment is released because it helps ensure the equipment is
transported by the correct carrier. Montez knew he needed to verify that
the BOL number provided by Martinez matched the BOL number
assigned to the equipment being transported, but he failed to do so.
Martinez tried unsuccessfully to contact his supervisor to obtain a BOL
number.
      Montez then called Julie Gainor, a United Rentals regional
manager. He told Gainor that a driver was at the San Antonio branch
to pick up a “boom” but did not have a BOL number. There was evidence

      1   See TEX. TRANSP. CODE § 621.207; 43 TEX. ADMIN. CODE
§§ 219.2(b)(43), .2(b)(46), .10.

                                    4
that “boom” could refer to a forklift with a boom arm as well as a boom
lift. Gainor found the BOL number for the Genie S-125 boom lift and
sent it to Montez. Montez then gave the BOL number for the boom lift
to another United Rentals employee, Nick Watts. Watts drove the boom
lift onto Martinez’s flatbed trailer. No one measured the height of the
load at the time, but the evidence indicates that it measured fourteen
feet, seven inches tall. Gainor testified that had she known Martinez
brought a normal flatbed trailer to haul an S-125 boom lift, she would
have been concerned “because you can’t haul a 125 on a flatbed.”
However, the BOL that Gainor sent to Montez specified that the Genie
S-125 boom lift was being transported by “Trailer Type: FLATBED.”
      Before departing, Martinez returned to the United Rentals office
and showed Montez his cell phone with the BOL number for the forklift.
This number did not match the BOL number for the boom lift that had
already been loaded onto Martinez’s truck, but Montez failed to notice
the discrepancy. Martinez signed the BOL for the boom lift. Company
policy required Montez to also sign the BOL, but he did not. Martinez
departed for Irving between 9:00 a.m. and 9:30 a.m.
      Specialized trailers are needed to transport oversized loads like
the boom lift.    Martinez did not have such a trailer, but around
10:45 a.m., Bob West, an experienced truck driver, arrived with a
“step-deck” trailer to pick up the boom lift. A step-deck trailer sits about
two feet lower than a regular flatbed trailer. West showed Montez the
BOL for the boom lift, but Montez told him the equipment had already
left with another driver.     Montez contacted Gainor.        She realized
Martinez had picked up the wrong load. No one with United Rentals

                                     5
contacted anyone about the mistake. West was given the forklift to
transport. West testified that United Rentals should not have loaded
the boom lift onto an ordinary flatbed trailer. United Rentals’ regional
fleet director likewise testified that Martinez had been given “the wrong
piece of equipment” and that the boom lift should have been transported
by a different driver using a lower trailer.
      Around 11:15 a.m., Martinez approached a construction zone in
Salado as he headed north on Interstate 35. Multiple signs warned that
the bridge under construction was low and that loads over thirteen feet,
six inches should exit before the overpass. Martinez did not exit. His
truck’s cargo struck the overpass. Two massive beams collapsed onto
the highway. Meanwhile, Clark Davis was driving south on the highway
in his pickup truck. One of the beams struck the hood of his truck and
crushed it. Davis suffered catastrophic injures and died at the scene.
The beam fell so quickly that Davis had no time to react by hitting his
brakes or swerving.
      The Texas Department of Public Safety investigated the crash.
Its report concluded that the crash was caused by the truck driver’s
error, noting as contributing factors the oversized load, the truck
driver’s lack of attention to the roadway, and the truck driver’s disregard
for posted warning signs in the construction zone. The report also
concluded that “the incorrect piece of equipment was loaded. Had the
correct piece of equipment been loaded, the crash would not have
occurred. This does not relieve the driver of the responsibility to check
the height of his load and if needed, obtain a permit.”

                                     6
                                     B.
       Davis’s mother, Pamela Evans, and Davis’s son, Dominic Jones,
filed a survival claim on behalf of Davis’s estate and a wrongful death
action on behalf of themselves. They sued several defendants, including
United Rentals, Lares Trucking, and Martinez. All defendants except
United Rentals settled or were dismissed before judgment.2
       Exercising its discretion to equalize peremptory strikes in a case
involving multiple parties, see TEX. R. CIV. P. 233, the district court gave
the defense nine peremptory strikes and the plaintiffs six, resulting in
a “strike zone” of twenty-seven potential jurors.3            The plaintiffs
exercised five of their six allotted strikes. They struck four white males
and one Hispanic male. United Rentals struck five black females, two
white females, and two white males. Both sides challenged the opposing
side’s strikes as improperly motivated. The district court sustained the
plaintiffs’ challenge as to two black females struck by the defense. Both
ended up on the twelve-person jury. The court denied the defense’s
challenge to the plaintiffs’ strikes. The jury selected included four black
women, one Asian woman, two Hispanic women, five Hispanic men, and
no white jurors.

       2The defendants also included U.S. Logistics—a broker that hired
Lares Trucking—and other entities involved in the construction of the bridge.
       3 By “strike zone” we mean “the group of potential jurors capable of
being on the jury.” Comeaux v. State, 445 S.W.3d 745, 751 (Tex. Crim. App.
2014). These twenty-seven potential jurors consisted of one Asian female,
three Hispanic females, eight black females, three white females, six Hispanic
males, and six white males.

                                      7
       The jury charge asked whether the negligence of any of four
potentially responsible parties proximately caused the injury and asked
the jury to fix a percentage of responsibility as to each contributing
party.4 The jury assigned 30% responsibility to United Rentals. It
awarded a total of $1.6 million to Jones, $2.7 million to Evans, and
$5 million to Davis’s estate for his physical pain and mental anguish
prior to death. Consistent with the jury’s proportioning of responsibility,
the court rendered judgment of $810,000 to Evans, $480,000 to Jones,
and $1.5 million to the estate, plus pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest.
       United Rentals appealed.         The court of appeals affirmed the
district court’s judgment.      608 S.W.3d 449, 485 (Tex. App.—Dallas
2020). Three justices, in two writings, dissented from denial of en banc
review.5
                                       II.
       We begin with the jury-selection issue.6 United Rentals first
complains that the district court erred by granting the plaintiffs’

       4The four potentially responsible parties listed in the charge were
“James Construction Group,” “United Rentals North America,” “Lares
Trucking/Valentin Martinez,” and “HNTB Corporation.”
       5Justice Evans, joined by Justices Whitehill and Schenck, favored en
banc reconsideration of the jury-selection issue. Justice Schenck, joined by
Justice Whitehill, would have granted en banc reconsideration of the amount
of damages for Davis’s pain and suffering. 608 S.W.3d at 485, 505.
       6  In addition to seeking a new trial on this basis, United Rentals also
seeks rendition of judgment in its favor, on the theory that it owed no tort duty
to the plaintiffs. If that argument were correct, we would not reach the request
for a new trial based on jury-selection error. As explained in Part III, however,

                                       8
challenge to two of its peremptory strikes.          Because a new trial is
required for other reasons, we do not reach this issue. As explained
below, we agree with United Rentals that a new trial is required by our
precedent because one party stated a preference for black jurors, that
party exercised its strikes in concert with the stated preference, and the
court did not remedy the situation before trial.7
       In Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), the U.S. Supreme
Court held “that a criminal defendant is denied equal protection under
the United States Constitution if a prosecutor uses peremptory
challenges to exclude members of the jury panel solely on the basis that
their race is the same as the defendant’s.” Goode, 943 S.W.2d at 444.
Five years later, in Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co., the U.S.
Supreme Court decided that “race-based exclusion” of civil jurors
violates the equal protection rights of the excluded juror. 500 U.S. at
616.   That same year, in Powers v. Palacios, this Court followed

United Rentals is not entitled to rendition of judgment on all claims against it,
so we address its request for a new trial.
       7 While both parties complain that the other party improperly exercised
peremptory challenges on the basis of both race and sex, we confine our
discussion to race. This Court has on multiple occasions recognized that when
there is proof that prospective jurors were struck on account of race and the
trial court does not remedy the matter, reversal is required in civil cases. See,
e.g., Powers, 813 S.W.2d at 490 (citing Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co., 500
U.S. 614, 616 (1991)); Goode v. Shoukfeh, 943 S.W.2d 441, 444 (Tex. 1997);
Davis v. Fisk Elec. Co., 268 S.W.3d 508, 526 (Tex. 2008). We have not had
occasion to address an allegation of a peremptory strike based on a juror’s sex,
although the U.S. Supreme Court, in a criminal case, has said that sex
discrimination in jury selection is prohibited. See J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel.
T.B., 511 U.S. 127, 129 (1994).           Because separate analysis of the
sex-discrimination aspect of the parties’ arguments would not affect the
outcome here, we need not address it.

                                       9
Edmonson, extending restrictions on “the unconstitutional use of
peremptory challenges in criminal actions to civil litigation.”              813
S.W.2d at 491. We have twice had occasion since Powers to consider
allegations that peremptory strikes were improperly based on race. See
Goode, 943 S.W.2d at 444; Davis, 268 S.W.3d at 510–11.
       As exemplified by our decisions in Goode v. Shoukfeh and Davis
v. Fisk Elec. Co., courts across the country faced with what is commonly
called a “Batson claim” usually conduct a three-step analysis to
determine     whether     the    challenged     strikes    were    purposefully
discriminatory.     See, e.g., Goode, 943 S.W.2d at 445–46; Davis, 268
S.W.3d at 514 n.4; Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 358–59 (1991).
First, “the opponent of the peremptory challenge must establish a prima
facie case of racial discrimination.” Goode, 943 S.W.2d at 445. Because
an on-the-record statement of racial preference is exceedingly rare, the
first step usually entails statistical analysis or suggestions of unspoken
motive designed to generate an “inference” of discrimination.8 With the
inference generated, the burden at the second step “shifts to the party
who has exercised the strike to come forward with a race-neutral
explanation.” Goode, 943 S.W.2d at 445. Finally, “at the third step of
the process, the trial court must determine if the party challenging the
strike has proven purposeful racial discrimination.” Id.

       8  See, e.g., Batson, 476 U.S. at 93–94 (describing steps for showing “an
inference of discriminatory purpose”); City of Beaumont v. Bouillion, 896
S.W.2d 143, 155–56 (Tex. 1995) (“[I]t is clear that the initial inference that the
plaintiffs used their peremptory strikes improperly was tenable.”); Salazar v.
State, 795 S.W.2d 187, 191 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (“The court of appeals held
that appellant failed to meet the three Batson criteria for raising an inference
of purposeful discrimination.”).

                                       10
      In Powers v. Palacios, we confronted the exceptional situation in
which counsel admitted on the record that race “figured into” the
decision to strike a black prospective juror, although counsel denied that
race affected the decision “improperly” and maintained that race “was
not the sole reason for striking her.” 813 S.W.2d at 490 n.1. We did not
engage in the three-step analysis common to ordinary Batson cases.
Instead, we summarily reversed the judgment below and remanded for
a new trial because the admission, on its own, “established that opposing
counsel had exercised a peremptory challenge discriminatorily.” Id. at
491. The express holding of Powers is “that equal protection is denied
when race is a factor in counsel’s exercise of a peremptory challenge to
a prospective juror.” Id.
      Powers’ statement that a violation occurs when race is “a factor”
in a peremptory strike is in some tension with the standard articulated
in Batson itself—that the Constitution is violated when prospective
jurors are struck “solely on account of” race. Batson, 476 U.S. at 89.
Because of this inconsistency, some courts interpreted Powers’
statement that race need only be “a factor” in the strike as a
Texas-specific relaxation of the U.S. Supreme Court’s standards for
discerning impermissible motive in jury selection. See, e.g., Benavides
v. Am. Chrome & Chems., Inc., 893 S.W.2d 624, 626 (Tex. App.—Corpus
Christi–Edinburg 1994, writ denied with opinion) (holding that “[w]e
and the Texas Supreme Court have gone a step further than some other
jurisdictions”). We quickly disclaimed any such relaxation, however.
Am. Chrome & Chems., Inc., v. Benavides, 907 S.W.2d 516, 517 (Tex.
1995) (repudiating the court of appeals’ statement that “the Texas

                                   11
Supreme Court [had] gone a step further”); Goode, 943 S.W.2d at 445
(disagreeing that Powers relaxed the analysis and describing the
appropriate inquiry as to whether the strike was “on the basis of race”).
Later, in Davis, we characterized the ultimate goal of the three-step
inquiry as determining whether race “explains” the strike “better than
any other reason.”9 268 S.W.3d at 526.
       Powers v. Palacios is thus an outlier case in multiple respects. It
does not engage in the three-step inquiry envisioned by Batson and later
cases, instead summarily remanding for a new trial due to the trial
court’s failure to remedy counsel’s admission of a race-based motive in
jury selection. Powers is also an outlier in holding that race need only
be “a factor” motivating the peremptory strike. Powers remains this
Court’s precedent, but given intervening developments in the law, its
apparently broad holding is best understood as limited to the rare
circumstance in which an admission of racial preference in jury selection
appears explicitly in the record. Therefore, Powers’ statement that a
Batson violation occurs when race is “a factor” in striking a juror does
not control in the typical Batson case when courts are asked to discern
counsel’s motivations from a mixture of imputed and proffered
explanations. But unless Powers is overruled, which no party requests,
the case continues to stand for the limited proposition that admission on
the record of race-based motivation in jury selection “establishe[s] that

       9The U.S. Supreme Court has since described the three-step inquiry as
designed to determine whether the peremptory strike was “motivated in
substantial part by discriminatory intent.” Flowers v. Mississippi, 139 S. Ct.
2228, 2245 (2019).

                                     12
[] counsel ha[s] exercised a peremptory challenge discriminatorily.”
813 S.W.2d at 491.
       The case before us is the unusual one, similar to Powers, in which
an explicit preference for jurors of a certain race (and therefore against
jurors of other races) was plainly stated on the record. During a lengthy
discussion of the parties’ competing Batson challenges, counsel for the
plaintiffs offered the following as a reason to believe that the defendant
used a strike on a black female because of her race: “We know from our
focus groups that the African-American female is the most favorable
juror for this case for whatever reason.”10
       Faced with such a statement, our precedent in Powers indicates
that we need not proceed, as many cases do, with a lengthy analysis of
the three-step Batson framework and how it applies to particular
strikes. Courts asked to impute impermissible racial motive based on
inferences from a race-neutral record should never do so lightly. Any
attempt to divine another person’s unspoken motives, particularly from
a cold record, is fraught with uncertainty. We should strive throughout
the law for easily administrable bright-line rules, which can be followed
by parties with confidence and applied by judges with predictability.
See, e.g., Gutierrez v. Collins, 583 S.W.2d 312, 317 (Tex. 1979) (favoring
standards that “provide[] a uniform, consistent, and predictable rule of

       10 According to Justice Evans’ dissenting opinion urging en banc review:
“This particular civil case appears to be the first in the United States where a
race- and gender-based goal—the substantial motivation—in selecting the jury
was plainly and openly stated, and 100% of the peremptory challenges were
perfectly consistent with that stated goal.” 608 S.W.3d at 486 (Evans, J.,
dissenting). We are not directed to, and have not identified, any other such
case.

                                      13
law, thus simplifying the task of both lawyers and the courts”). Most
Batson claims, by their very nature, deal in subjective implications and
inferences rather than objective bright-line rules. The potential for
judicial mistake is high, and courts should approach this unwelcome but
required task with humility. But in the rare case where the record
contains a clear admission of racial preference in jury selection, Powers
provides an easily administrable bright-line rule, which we apply today.
      Of course, it is not the mere expression of a racial preference in
jury selection, standing alone, that requires reversal. It is instead the
actual strike of a juror on account of race. Thus, even when a racial
preference is announced, if the peremptory strikes are not consistent
with the announced preference, there will be no grounds to find the
strikes unlawful. Here, the strikes are consistent with the announced
preference. Plaintiffs’ counsel struck four white males and one Hispanic
male. As a dissenting court of appeals justice observed, counsel’s goal
“in selecting the jury was plainly and openly stated, and 100% of the
peremptory challenges were perfectly consistent with that stated goal.”
608 S.W.3d at 486 (Evans, J., dissenting).
      The plaintiffs object that they only used five of their six allotted
strikes.   They do not explain why they did not use the last strike.
Regardless, we fail to see why this fact alters the analysis. All the
strikes that were used were consistent with the stated racial preference,
and the decision not to use the final strike does not undercut the clearly
stated and demonstrated racial preference.
      The plaintiffs also emphasize that counsel’s comment regarding
“the most favorable juror” was made during a discussion of the plaintiffs’

                                   14
challenge to the defense’s strikes, not a discussion of the plaintiffs’
strikes.   The plaintiffs argue that the comment was made to
demonstrate the pretextual nature of the defense’s race-neutral
explanation for its strike of a black female.          This argument is
unpersuasive.    There is no getting around the statement’s clear
expression of a racial preference in jury selection, and the statement was
made during a lengthy exchange among counsel and the court regarding
both sides’ Batson challenges.
      Even if the statement is viewed purely as an attempt to explain
the defense’s motives, the statement suggests that counsel for the
plaintiffs accused defense counsel of improperly striking black females
at least in part to advance his own preference for jurors of one race over
jurors of other races. If counsel for both sides “knows” based on focus
groups or jury consultants that jurors of a certain race are “good” or
“bad” for one side or the other, then the improper use of racially
motivated peremptory strikes is not the only concern. Batson challenges
themselves can also be used in an improper attempt to influence the
racial composition of the jury in what the challenger perceives to be his
favor. A race-conscious jury-selection strategy thus poisons the entire
enterprise—from voir dire to peremptory strikes to arguments about
Batson.
      “It is a sordid business, this divvying us up by race.” LULAC v.
Perry, 548 U.S. 399, 511 (2006) (Roberts, C.J., concurring in part).
Judges bear the ultimate responsibility for administering race-neutral
proceedings, but if our system of justice is ever to rid itself entirely of

                                    15
racial discrimination, lawyers and jury consultants must do their part
as well.11
       Because counsel stated a racial preference in jury selection, the
peremptory strikes were consistent with that preference, and the
district court did not remedy the matter, a new trial is required.12
                                      III.
                                      A.
       United Rentals argues that judgment should be rendered in its
favor because it had no duty under Texas law that would support the
plaintiffs’ negligence claims. If that is correct, then we need not reach
any other issues, including the jury-selection issue discussed above. It
is not correct, however, for the reasons explained below.
       The existence of a legal duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff
is an essential element of a negligence claim. D. Houston, Inc., v. Love,

       11The record of the voir dire and the plaintiffs’ briefing in this Court
make clear that the plaintiffs employed jury consultants.
       12   Trial courts have extensive leeway in fashioning appropriate
remedies for improper racial considerations in jury selection. See United States
v. Bartee, 301 F. App’x 46, 48 (2d Cir. 2008) (“A district court’s discretion to
fashion remedies for Batson violations is broad.”); Price v. Short, 931 S.W.2d
677, 681 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1996, no writ) (“If the trial court determines that
the prosecution used peremptory strikes in a racially discriminatory manner,
the court may dismiss the array and summon a new one . . . or it ‘may fashion
a remedy in its discretion consistent with Batson and its progeny.’”) (quoting
State ex rel. Curry v. Bowman, 885 S.W.2d 421, 425 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993));
Garza v. State, 10 S.W.3d 765, 768 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2000,
pet. ref’d.) (After the use of peremptory strikes, there were no women on the
jury and six of the ten strikes used by the defense were against women, so the
trial court used its discretion to disallow all six strikes of women and permit
the defendant to re-exercise its strikes.). Statements such as the one made
here need not irretrievably taint the proceedings, so long as they are remedied
by the district court prior to trial.

                                      16
92 S.W.3d 450, 454 (Tex. 2002). Although a duty’s existence can depend
on the facts of the case, whether a duty exists under a given set of facts
is always a question of law for the court. Three Aces Towing, Inc. v.
Landrum, 653 S.W.3d 727, 729–30 (Tex. 2022). We agree with the
plaintiffs and the court of appeals that United Rentals owed the
plaintiffs an actionable duty under these circumstances.
      As we have previously observed:
      There are many instances in which it may be said, as a
      matter of law, that there is a duty to do something, and in
      others it may be said, as a matter of law, that there is no
      such duty. . . . [I]t may be said generally, on the one hand,
      that if a party negligently creates a dangerous situation it
      then becomes his duty to do something about it to prevent
      injury to others if it reasonably appears or should appear
      to him that others in the exercise of their lawful rights may
      be injured thereby. On the other hand, it may be said
      generally, as a matter of law, that a mere bystander who
      did not create the dangerous situation is not required to
      become the good Samaritan and prevent injury to others.

Torrington Co. v. Stutzman, 46 S.W.3d 829, 837 (Tex. 2000) (quoting
SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Doe, 903 S.W.2d 347, 353 (Tex. 1995)); see
also Buchanan v. Rose, 159 S.W.2d 109, 110 (Tex. 1942) (same).
      Imposing a duty on United Rentals in these circumstances by no
means requires the company to play the role of the “good Samaritan,”
who goes out of his way to aid those to whom he owes no legal duty.13
Instead, it merely requires United Rentals to avoid “negligently
creat[ing] a dangerous situation” that has the highly foreseeable
consequence of injuring “others in the exercise of their lawful rights,”

      13   Luke 10:30–37.

                                   17
such as those driving down the highway, like Davis. When determining
whether a negligence duty is owed, the foreseeability of the risk is “the
foremost and dominant consideration.” Greater Hous. Transp. Co. v.
Phillips, 801 S.W.2d 523, 525 (Tex. 1990). Here, the foreseeability of the
terrible risk to innocent parties posed by loading unduly tall loads onto
trucks bound for an interstate highway ought to be so obvious as to go
without saying.
         United Rentals frequently has its heavy equipment moved on
highways.     It had every reason to be well aware of the dangers of
oversized loads, and it had ample opportunity to guard against allowing
its equipment to be transported dangerously.        Most importantly, it
would reasonably appear to anyone involved in the loading of equipment
like the boom lift that injury, indeed catastrophic injury, is a distinctly
foreseeable result of improper loading.     We agree with the court of
appeals that, in general, “a party who takes affirmative acts that create
a danger on a public highway can be held responsible for the results of
those actions, along with other responsible actors.” 608 S.W.3d at 463.
Under these facts, United Rentals owed a duty to Davis and other
drivers to refrain from “negligently creat[ing] a dangerous situation” on
the highway. Torrington, 46 S.W.3d at 837.
         United Rentals argues that the trucking company here had
“non-delegable” statutory and regulatory duties to comply with
load-height requirements, and to ensure proper loading and securing of
cargo.    See TEX. TRANSP. CODE §§ 621.207, .504; see also 49 C.F.R.
§§ 390.11, 392.9(b)(2); 37 TEX. ADMIN. CODE § 4.11(a). Even assuming
the trucking company had such duties, as it likely did, United Rentals

                                    18
cites no authority indicating that the mere existence of a statutory duty
enforceable against the trucking company automatically eviscerates all
other parties’ common law duties that might have arisen depending on
the facts. Texas law of course recognizes that more than one defendant
can be held liable for a single injury to a plaintiff. The entirety of
Chapter 33 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code, setting out rules of
proportionate responsibility, is premised on the principle that more than
one party can be legally responsible for a single injury.
      The plaintiffs point to an administrative rule requiring that a
person “operating or loading” certain vehicles must comply with various
requirements, including height restrictions. See 43 TEX. ADMIN. CODE
§ 219.81(a); see also TEX. TRANSP. CODE § 621.503. The parties disagree
about whether these requirements applied to United Rentals when its
employee drove the boom lift onto Martinez’s truck, thereby “loading”
the vehicle. No matter which side has the correct interpretation of the
applicable statutes and regulations, the answer to that question does
not determine whether United Rentals owed a common law duty to
drivers on Texas roads to avoid negligently creating an extremely
dangerous situation.
      A tort duty may in some cases be derived from statute or
administrative rules rather than the common law. See Smith v. Merritt,
940 S.W.2d 602, 607 (Tex. 1997) (statute); Mo. Pac. R.R. Co. v. Am.
Statesman, 552 S.W.2d 99, 102 (Tex. 1977) (administrative rule). But
United Rentals cites no authority suggesting that a common law claim
against one defendant automatically fails because a negligence per se
claim against another defendant who violated a statute might also exist.

                                   19
      United Rentals may be correct, in a sense, that the trucking
company’s legal duties regarding safe loading of its trucks are
“non-delegable,” meaning that the trucking company cannot relieve
itself of those duties. But the plaintiffs’ claims do not attempt to impose
the trucking company’s statutory duties on United Rentals. Instead,
they seek to hold United Rentals liable, under the common law, for the
foreseeable consequences of its own negligence, which contributed to the
unsafe loading of the boom lift and thereby to Davis’s death. United
Rentals does not escape its common law duty to avoid negligent actions
that create hazardous road conditions merely because other sources of
law impose similar duties on other parties.
                                    B.
      United Rentals next argues that, assuming it owed the plaintiffs
a duty, there was no evidence that it breached that duty, and there was
no evidence that its negligence proximately caused the plaintiffs’
injuries. We disagree.
      The evidence is legally insufficient to support a jury finding when
“(1) the record discloses a complete absence of evidence of a vital fact;
(2) the court is barred by rules of law or of evidence from giving weight
to the only evidence offered to prove a vital fact; (3) the evidence offered
to prove a vital fact is no more than a mere scintilla; or (4) the evidence
establishes conclusively the opposite of a vital fact.” Gunn v. McCoy,
554 S.W.3d 645, 658 (Tex. 2018). In determining whether there is no
evidence to support a jury’s finding, all the record evidence must be
considered in the light most favorable to the party in whose favor the
verdict has been rendered.      Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc. v. Havner,

                                    20
953 S.W.2d 706, 711 (Tex. 1997). As we stated in City of Keller v. Wilson,
“[t]he final test for legal sufficiency must always be whether the
evidence at trial would enable reasonable and fair-minded people to
reach the verdict under review.” 168 S.W.3d 802, 827 (Tex. 2005).
      We agree with the plaintiffs and the court of appeals that the
evidence was legally sufficient to support the jury’s findings of breach
and proximate cause. A United Rentals employee loaded an oversized
boom lift onto a regular flatbed trailer, even though United Rentals
knew a boom lift should not be transported on a regular flatbed trailer
and had a policy preventing it.     The error occurred at least partly
because United Rentals’ employees mishandled the BOL numbers that
would have matched the boom lift to the proper trailer. When United
Rentals’ employees realized the error, before the accident, they failed to
make any effort to fix the problem. Negligently allowing its oversized
heavy equipment to travel down a highway on an unsuitable trailer
created an exceptionally dangerous condition and a foreseeable risk of
death or serious injury to others, including Davis, whose death was the
proximate result of the acts and omissions of United Rentals, among
other responsible parties. Ample evidence supported the jury’s findings
of breach and proximate cause.
                                   IV.
      Finally, United Rentals argues that the evidence was legally
insufficient to support the damages for mental and physical pain and
suffering sustained by Davis before his death. The jury charge asked
what sum would fairly and reasonably compensate Davis for his “pain
and mental anguish,” defined as “the conscious physical pain and

                                   21
emotional pain, torment, and suffering experienced by Clark Brandon
Davis before his death as a result of the occurrence in question.” The
jury awarded $5 million on this claim. Based on the jury’s assignment
of 30% responsibility to United Rentals, the court awarded $1.5 million
to Pamela Evans as administrator of the decedent’s estate.
      We agree with United Rentals that the evidence offered in
support of these damages was legally insufficient.14          The alleged
damages suffered by Davis included two categories: (1) the mental
anguish he suffered in anticipation of his injury as the beams were
falling, and (2) the physical pain and attendant mental anguish he
suffered after his physical injury but before his death. The jury charge
did not separately list the two categories, but the parties agree that
these are the two kinds of damages sought for Davis’s survival claim.
      As to mental anguish preceding Davis’s injury, the plaintiffs’
accident-reconstruction expert, William Miller, testified that the beam
that struck Davis’s truck fell to the ground in, at most, nine-tenths of a
second. He testified that there was no time for Davis to react by braking
or taking other action, but Miller thought “there [was] time to [think]
oh, my gosh, what’s happening, you know, in a moment.” Miller further
testified that Davis had “no time to react other than maybe to realize, if
he realizes, that [the] beam is falling.” But Miller offered no opinion on
whether Davis in fact realized the beam was falling before he was killed.

      14  United Rentals separately argues that no evidence supports the
amount of damages awarded by the jury. We need not reach this issue. Nor
do we consider United Rentals’ suggestion that mental anguish awards for the
split-second anticipation of injury should not be permitted at all.

                                    22
      Evidence that there was time for Davis to anticipate the injury is
not evidence that he actually did so. There was no evidence that Davis
in fact observed the truck hit the overpass or saw the falling debris
before it struck his vehicle, and Miller did not purport to have any
opinion on whether or not Davis would have actually anticipated the
injury under those circumstances. Thus, while the record may contain
evidence that Davis had time to perceive the beams falling and
anticipate the consequences, no evidence suggests that he actually did.
      Testimony that gives “rise to any number of inferences, none more
probable than another,” is legally insufficient to support the inference of
a fact. Hammerly Oaks, Inc. v. Edwards, 958 S.W.2d 387, 392 (Tex.
1997) (internal citations omitted). Likewise, “[w]hen the circumstances
are equally consistent with either of two facts, neither fact may be
inferred.” City of Keller, 168 S.W.3d at 813 (quoting Tubelite, a Div. of
Indal, Inc. v. Risica & Sons, Inc., 819 S.W.2d 801, 805 (Tex. 1991)).
“Jurors may not simply speculate that a particular inference arises from
the evidence.” Serv. Corp. Int’l v. Guerra, 348 S.W.3d 221, 228 (Tex.
2011). Thus, “[a] jury may not infer” conscious pain and suffering from
circumstantial evidence when the evidence gives “rise to any number of
inferences, none more probable than another.” Hammerly Oaks, Inc.,
958 S.W.2d at 392. If the jury’s inference has no support in the evidence
and amounts to nothing more than a guess, the finding cannot survive
a legal sufficiency challenge. Serv. Corp. Int’l, 348 S.W.3d at 228–29.
      It was the plaintiffs’ burden to prove by a preponderance of the
evidence that Davis actually suffered the damages claimed. Haygood v.
De Escabedo, 356 S.W.3d 390, 399 (Tex. 2011) (quoting Texarkana Mem’l

                                    23
Hosp., Inc. v. Murdock, 946 S.W.2d 836, 838 (Tex. 1997)). There was no
evidence presented at trial to carry this burden. No testimony from
nearby drivers indicated that Davis swerved or otherwise reacted prior
to the impact. And the accident-reconstruction expert could not offer an
opinion that Davis, more likely than not, perceived the impending
impact to his vehicle. As a result, an inference by the jury that Davis
did in fact have such a perception would be based not on evidence but on
speculation. Any portion of the mental anguish damages awarded by
the jury based on Davis’s awareness of the impending injury was based
solely on speculation and therefore cannot stand.
      The remaining question is whether there was evidence that Davis
retained consciousness and therefore experienced physical and mental
pain after the beam struck his truck. The parties focus on the testimony
of the medical examiner, Dr. Townsend-Parchman, who conducted the
autopsy. She testified that Davis died from the catastrophic injuries
suffered when the massive beam fell on his truck. The horrific extent of
the injuries is described by the court of appeals. 608 S.W.3d at 466. Dr.
Townsend-Parchman explained that the injuries were caused when
“something mammoth crushed” Davis, and the injuries she detailed
were “way more than you see in most traffic wrecks.” The plaintiffs
argue that because Davis’s skull was not fractured and the autopsy did
not reveal injury to his vertebrae, blood could have continued to travel
to his brain for a brief time after the impact.
      On the matter of Davis’s post-impact consciousness, Dr.
Townsend-Parchman was asked:             “Can you state, based upon a
reasonable medical probability, whether or not Mr. Davis was actually

                                    24
aware of what had happened to him after this accident happened,
whether he was consciously aware?” She answered: “He may or may
not have been knocked unconscious, and there’s no way to
know. . . . That’s a big question mark that’s going to stay a question
mark.” She agreed that “it would be speculative to say whether or not
he was actually consciously aware of what happened to him after this
accident.” When asked whether he was unconscious, stunned, or “clear
as a bell for 10 to 15 seconds” before his brain ran out of oxygen, she
stated     “[t]here   is   nothing    to   distinguish   those.”      Dr.
Townsend-Parchman’s testimony was the only evidence regarding
Davis’s post-accident consciousness on which the jury could have relied.
         If Davis was immediately rendered unconscious by the impact,
then he did not suffer physical or mental pain following the impact. If
he retained consciousness, then he likely did suffer such pain.        As
between these two scenarios, it is the plaintiffs’ evidentiary burden to
prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Davis actually suffered
the claimed injuries—in other words, that he retained consciousness
after the impact. Yet the plaintiffs’ medical expert, who offered the only
testimony on this topic, could not offer an opinion that Davis more likely
than not retained consciousness after impact. If there is no evidence one
way or another on this question, any damages awarded for conscious
pain and suffering could only have been based on speculation, not
evidence. Speculation that damages may have been suffered cannot
support a judgment. There must instead be some evidence that damages
were actually suffered. D. Houston, Inc., 92 S.W.3d at 454.

                                     25
      Despite being given multiple opportunities to do so, Dr.
Townsend-Parchman declined to testify that, in her opinion, Davis more
likely than not retained consciousness.    She made it clear that she
simply did not know. When considering the possibilities, she testified
that “certainly there have been people who in terms of anatomy only had
a subscapular hemorrhage [like the one Davis suffered] and were
knocked unconscious.” On the other hand, “he could have been clear as
a bell for 10 to 15 seconds.”      The jury could not infer from Dr.
Townsend-Parchman’s noncommittal testimony that Davis was actually
conscious after impact. As a result, the evidence supporting damages
for post-impact pain and suffering was legally insufficient.
      In previous cases, “[t]his Court and [the] courts of appeal[s] have
rendered a take nothing judgment on claims in cases for which the
evidence is legally insufficient to support the verdict and remanded,
where appropriate, for new trial those claims that appear to be
supported by legally sufficient evidence.” U-Haul Int’l, Inc. v. Waldrip,
380 S.W.3d 118, 141 (Tex. 2012) (ordering a new trial on negligence
claims but rendering judgment on gross-negligence claims because no
evidence supported damages for those claims); see also Pike v. Tex. EMC
Mgmt., LLC, 610 S.W.3d 763, 791 (Tex. 2020) (“Because there is no
evidence of damages, we reverse the portions of the judgment awarding
damages and render a take-nothing judgment.”). Because no evidence
supports any of the damages sought for Davis’s survival claim, we
render judgment for United Rentals on that claim.

                                   26
                                       V.
       For these reasons, we reverse the judgment of the court of appeals
on the survival claim brought by Davis’s estate, and we render a take
nothing judgment on this claim. The case is remanded to the district
court for a new trial on the remaining claims.15

                                            James D. Blacklock
                                            Justice

OPINION DELIVERED: May 12, 2023

       15  In addition to the Batson issues we have addressed, United Rentals
argues, as grounds for a new trial, that the district court erred by allowing the
plaintiffs’ accident-reconstruction expert to give an erroneous interpretation of
the Texas Administrative Code and by refusing United Rentals’ requested
charge instruction to correct that alleged error. Whether these issues will arise
again on remand is unclear, and we do not address them.

                                       27