Supreme Court
Oscar Renda Contracting v. Bruce
- Case number: 22-0889
- Legal category: Procedure--Trial and Post-Trial
- Subtype: Jury Instructions and Questions
- Set for oral argument: February 1, 2024
Case Summary
The issue in this case is whether the trial court erred in signing a judgment that disregarded the jury’s award of exemplary damages due to language in the charge and a post-verdict jury poll indicating that the verdict was not unanimous.
As part of a flood-mitigation project undertaken by the City of El Paso, Renda Contracting was awarded a contract to install a pipeline from Interstate 10 to the Rio Grande River. Nearby homeowners sued Renda Contracting, alleging that vibration and soil shifting from the construction caused damage to their homes. At issue here are the parts of the jury charge related to exemplary damages. Question 7 instructed the jury that it could only find gross negligence if that finding was unanimous and if its finding of simple negligence in Question 1 was also unanimous. The jury answered “yes” to Question 7. Question 8 asked what sum of money should be awarded for exemplary damages. The instruction on Question 8 stated that the question should only be answered if the jury answered “yes” to Question 7, but the instruction did not require the jury’s answer to Question 8 to be unanimous. The jury awarded $825,000 in exemplary damages.
The certificate at the end of the verdict reflected that the verdict was not unanimous, and only ten jurors signed the form. When the trial court polled the jury, ten jurors responded that the verdict was their individual verdict, and two responded that it was not. When the homeowners moved for judgment on the jury’s verdict, Renda Contracting objected to the award of exemplary damages because the verdict was not unanimous. The trial court signed a final judgment that disregarded the award of exemplary damages.
A split court of appeals reversed and remanded with instructions to enter a judgment on the jury’s verdict. The majority reasoned that Renda Contracting had waived its challenge by failing to properly and timely object to the jury charge and that Renda Contracting had also failed to carry its burden to prove that the verdict on exemplary damages was not unanimous.
Renda Contracting filed a petition for review, raising several challenges to the court of appeals’ opinion. The Supreme Court granted the petition.
Case summaries are created by the Court's staff attorneys and law clerks and do not constitute the Court’s official descriptions or statements. Readers are encouraged to review the Court’s official opinions for specifics regarding each case. Links to the full case documents are included above.