Court of Appeals of Texas, Twelfth District, Tyler
consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.
Esters seeks mandamus relief from the trial court's order
granting Melinda Warner's motion for new
trial. In two issues, she contends that the trial
court abused its discretion by granting the new trial, and
that she has no adequate remedy at law. We deny the petition.
and Warner were involved in a motor vehicle collision in
February 2014. Warner sued Esters, alleging that she was
injured as a result of the collision. She sought past and
future damages for expenses, pain and suffering, mental
anguish, and physical impairment. The jury found Esters was
negligent and awarded Warner $5, 000 for past physical pain
and mental anguish, $5, 000 for past physical impairment, and
$23, 206.46 for past medical expenses. The jury did not award
any future damages.
filed a motion for judgment on the verdict, and Warner filed
a motion for new trial. Warner alleged that the failure of
the jury to award future damages was contrary to the
overwhelming weight and preponderance of the evidence.
Following a hearing, the trial court granted Warner's
motion for new trial. This original proceeding followed.
will issue only to correct a clear abuse of discretion for
which the relator has no adequate remedy by appeal. In re
Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135-36 (Tex.
2004) (orig. proceeding). A trial court does not abuse its
discretion in granting a new trial as long as its stated
reason (1) is a reason for which a new trial is legally
appropriate, and (2) is specific enough to indicate that the
trial court did not simply parrot a pro forma template, but
rather derived the articulated reasons from the particular
facts and circumstances of the case. In re United
Scaffolding, Inc., 377 S.W.3d 685, 687-88 (Tex. 2012)
(orig. proceeding). To rule on a party's request for a
new trial that is based on factual insufficiency of the
evidence, the trial court must consider and weigh all of the
trial evidence and determine whether the challenged fact
finding is so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the
evidence as to be clearly wrong and unjust. See Maritime
Overseas Corp. v. Ellis, 971 S.W.2d 402, 406-07 (Tex.
appellate court may review the merits of a new trial order in
a mandamus proceeding. In re Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A.,
Inc., 407 S.W.3d 746, 759 (Tex. 2013) (orig.
proceeding). If a trial court abuses its discretion in
granting a motion for new trial, there is no adequate remedy
by appeal. In re Columbia Medical Ctr. of Las Colinas,
Subsidiary, L.P., 290 S.W.3d 204, 210 (Tex. 2009) (orig.
first address Warner's argument that Esters's
petition should be dismissed for failure to provide a
relator bears the burden of demonstrating her entitlement to
mandamus relief. See In re Ford Motor Co., 165
S.W.3d 315, 317 (Tex. 2005) (per curiam) (orig. proceeding);
Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992)
(orig. proceeding). This burden includes providing the
appellate court ...