Texas Employers' Ins. Ass'n v. Haywood

Rule of Law:

An attorney's argument that is so inflammatory and prejudicial as to be incurable, such as a direct appeal to racial prejudice to attack witness credibility, constitutes reversible error requiring a new trial, even if the opposing counsel fails to make a timely objection.

Facts:

• Respondent, a negro man, sought worker's compensation benefits, claiming he suffered a total and permanent disability from a workplace injury.
• At trial, respondent testified that due to his injury, he was unable to turn his head from a fixed position and could only perform very limited work.
• To counter this testimony, petitioner presented two negro witnesses, William and Richard Reynolds, who were brothers and friends of the respondent.
• William Reynolds testified that respondent had worked at a garage where he was the foreman and that he observed no abnormality in the way respondent held his head or neck.
• Richard Reynolds testified that he had seen respondent perform work requiring heavy lifting for another employer.
• The witnesses admitted that petitioner had paid their travel expenses and agreed to reimburse them for any lost wages to testify at the trial.

Procedural Posture:

• Respondent sued to recover benefits under the Workmen's Compensation Law in a Texas trial court.
• The jury returned a verdict for the respondent, finding he was totally and permanently disabled.
• Petitioner filed an amended motion for a new trial, arguing for the first time that respondent's counsel made an improper and prejudicial closing argument.
• The trial court denied the petitioner's motion for a new trial.
• Petitioner, as appellant, appealed to the Court of Civil Appeals, which affirmed the trial court's judgment.
• Petitioner then filed an application for writ of error to the Supreme Court of Texas, which the court granted to review the issue of improper argument.