An Appellate Court May Review A Trial Court's Reasons For Granting A New Trial To See If They Are Valid

On August 30, 2013, the Texas Supreme Court expanded the scope of appellate review of new trial orders, holding that an appellate court may conduct merit-based review of a trial court's stated reasons for granting a new trial.1 The ruling arose from a rollover case against Toyota Motor Company. The driver of a Toyota 4Runner was ejected in a rollover accident. His family sued, alleging a design defect in the vehicle's seatbelts. The jury found for Toyota, but the trial court granted a new trial because Toyota's lawyers allegedly referred to inadmissible evidence during closing argument that the driver was not wearing his seatbelt at the time of the accident. Toyota sought a writ of mandamus from the court of appeals, but the intermediate appellate court did not believe it had authority to review the merits of the reasons stated in the new trial order. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that appellate courts have the power to review the substance of a trial court's order for new trial. The Supreme Court first reviewed its recent jurisprudence narrowing a trial court's ability to set aside jury verdicts. In 2008, the Court held that a trial court must explain with reasonable specificity why it has set aside a jury verdict and granted a new trial.2 More recently, it decided that a new trial could be granted only for valid reasons and an order that gave four alternative reasons for granting a new trial, including "in the interest of justice" left open the possibility that "in the interest of justice" was the sole reason.3 This case was the next step in the progression: if a trial court's order states its reason for granting a new trial and the reason is legally appropriate and specific, may an appellate court nevertheless determine whether the...