In Sarah Gregory and New Prime, Inc. v. Jaswinder Chohan, 670 S.W.3d 546 (Tex. 2023), the Texas Supreme Court introduced new scrutiny to noneconomic damages, such as mental anguish and pain and suffering, which have historically yielded significant awards.
Although the justices did not produce a majority opinion, their ruling on June 16, 2023, offers critical guidance for both plaintiffs and defense counsel. The decision reverses a $15.6 million noneconomic damages award to the family of a truck driver killed in an accident, sending the case back for a new trial and signaling that future claims for noneconomic damages must meet stricter evidentiary standards.
Background of Gregory
The case arose from a fatal multi-vehicle accident involving a truck driven by Sarah Gregory for New Prime, Inc. After Gregory lost control on an icy road, multiple trucks and cars crashed, killing several people, including truck driver Bhupinder Deol. Gregory and New Prime settled with several plaintiffs, but Deol’s family pursued their wrongful death claim to trial, where a jury awarded them $15.6 million in noneconomic damages. The award was upheld by the Fifth District Court of Appeals in Dallas, though four of the thirteen justices dissented, calling for clearer guidance from the Texas Supreme Court.
The Court’s Holding and Opinions
The Texas Supreme Court reversed the award, finding that plaintiffs must provide a rational connection between the evidence and the requested amount of noneconomic damages providing that a court must find legally sufficient evidence of the “nature, duration, and severity” of both the existence of mental anguish and of the amount of the factfinder’s award. See Blacklock Op. at 16 (citing Parkway Co. v. Woodruff, 901 S.W.2d 434, 444 (Tex. 1995); Saenz v. Fidelity & Guar. Ins. Underwriters, 925 S.W.2d 607, 614 (Tex. 1996); Bentley v. Bunton, 94 S.W.3d 561, 606 (Tex. 2002)). Key takeaways include:
Rejecting Arbitrary Anchors: The plurality opinion, authored by Justice Jimmy Blacklock, criticized plaintiffs’ counsel for presenting arbitrary calculations to the jury, such as comparing damages to the price of fighter jets or company revenues per mile. The court held that such arguments lack a rational basis and should not influence damage awards.
Evidence-Based Standard: To justify mental anguish damages, plaintiffs must provide specific evidence of the nature, duration, and severity of the emotional harm. General references to grief or pain without supporting evidence will no longer suffice.
Limits on Comparisons: The court discouraged comparing noneconomic damages to economic damages, cautioning that such benchmarks could create inequities by implying that families of higher-income decedents experience greater emotional losses.
While the court agreed on key principles, no majority opinion emerged, leaving the specifics of applying these standards open for future clarification. Justice Devine criticized the proposed evidentiary standard as vague and urged the legislature to address the issue. Justice Bland took a more cautious approach, suggesting that future cases will provide better opportunities to refine the standard.
Why Gregory Matters
The Gregory ruling marks a significant shift in Texas tort law, emphasizing that noneconomic damages cannot be arbitrary or speculative. This decision curtails the practice of using emotionally charged or irrelevant comparisons to justify high awards, forcing plaintiffs to ground their claims in concrete evidence. As the ruling invites more litigation on this issue, Texas courts are likely to revisit and refine the standard for noneconomic damages in wrongful death and personal injury cases.