Dillard v. Texas Electric Cooperative
2005 Tex. LEXIS 144, 48 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 401, 157 S.W.3d 429 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A trial court does not abuse its discretion by refusing to submit multiple, overlapping inferential rebuttal instructions when a single submitted instruction is broad enough to encompass the defendant's defensive theory that a non-party or external condition was the sole cause of the occurrence.
Facts:
- Stephen Bumstead, a driver for Texas Electric Cooperative (TEC), was transporting a load of utility poles at night on U.S. Highway 175.
- After cresting a hill, Bumstead encountered several cows on the road and collided with one, leaving its carcass in the opposite (eastbound) lane.
- Bumstead pulled his truck over about 1,500 feet past the dead cow, turned off his headlights, and had another trucker call 911.
- A few minutes later, Mae Joyce Brown, driving east, struck the dead cow with her car.
- Brown's vehicle was thrown into the westbound lane, where it collided head-on with a vehicle occupied by the Dillard family.
- The collision killed Kenneth Dillard and injured his wife and daughter.
- The owner of the cattle that were on the roadway was never identified.
Procedural Posture:
- The Dillard family sued Texas Electric Cooperative (TEC) and its driver, Stephen Bumstead, for negligence in a Texas state trial court.
- At the charge conference during trial, TEC requested jury instructions on both 'unavoidable accident' and 'sole proximate cause.'
- The trial court submitted the 'unavoidable accident' instruction but refused to submit TEC's requested 'sole proximate cause' instruction.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of the Dillards, and the trial court rendered judgment on the verdict.
- TEC, as appellant, appealed to the court of appeals, contending the trial court erred by refusing the sole cause instruction.
- The court of appeals agreed with TEC, reversed the trial court’s judgment, and remanded the case for a new trial.
- The Dillards, as petitioners, were granted a petition for review by the Supreme Court of Texas.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court abuse its discretion by refusing to submit a separate 'sole proximate cause' jury instruction when it has already submitted an 'unavoidable accident' instruction that is broad enough to encompass the defendant's theory that a non-party was the sole cause of the accident?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice O’Neill
No, a trial court does not abuse its discretion by refusing to give a requested 'sole proximate cause' instruction when the 'unavoidable accident' instruction that was given was sufficiently broad to permit the defendant to argue its defensive theory. The purpose of inferential rebuttal instructions is to inform the jury that they are not required to find a party to the suit at fault if evidence suggests the incident was caused by an external condition or a non-party. In this case, the submitted 'unavoidable accident' instruction, defining the event as one 'not proximately caused by the negligence of any party to it,' allowed TEC to argue that the presence of the cattle was the true cause. Submitting multiple, redundant instructions on the same defensive theme is contrary to the spirit of broad-form submission, creates the potential to unfairly emphasize one party's theory, and can confuse the jury. Jurors need not agree on the specific alternative cause, only that the defendant was not negligent, and a single broad instruction sufficiently presents that alternative.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the Texas judiciary's preference for broad-form submission of jury charges and discourages the practice of submitting multiple, overlapping inferential rebuttal instructions. It clarifies that a single, well-worded instruction is sufficient if it allows a party to fully argue its defensive theory, thereby streamlining jury charges and reducing the likelihood of reversal for charge error. The ruling guides trial courts to avoid redundant instructions that could unfairly skew a jury's analysis, promoting clarity and simplicity in jury deliberations. This impacts litigation strategy by discouraging attorneys from 'slicing' multiple defenses from the same set of facts in an attempt to overemphasize their position to the jury.
