Casteel-type error in Texas

2022But because the Defendants did not object to the charge in the trial court, they have failed to preserve this issue for our review and thus cannot now complain about the charge. 18 See Burbage, 447 S.W.3d at 256 (“[I]n situations where a party does not raise a Casteel-type objection, that party surely cannot raise a Casteel issue when it failed to preserve a claim of an invalid theory of liability 18 Citing United Scaffolding, Inc. v. Levine, 537 S.W.3d 463 (Tex. 2017), the Defendants contend that they weren’t required to object to the charge and preserved their complaint by raising it in thei

2019But our ruling in that case was premised on preservation—that is, that “[a] timely objection, plainly informing the court that a specific element of damages should not be included in a broad-form question because there is no evidence to support its submission, therefore preserves the error for appellate review.” Id.; see Burbage, 447 S.W.3d at 255 (“[I]n situations where a party does not raise a Casteel-type objection, that party surely cannot raise a Casteel issue when it failed to preserve a claim of an invalid theory of liability that forms the basis of a Casteel-type error.”).

2023“A Casteel-type error occurs when the trial court submits a single broad-form liability question incorporating multiple theories of liability and the appellate court cannot determine whether the jury based its verdict on an invalid theory that was improperly submitted.” Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc. v. Black, 652 S.W.3d 463 , 482 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2022, no pet.) (citing Casteel, 22 S.W.3d at 388 ).

2023“A Casteel-type error occurs when the trial court submits a single broad-form liability question incorporating multiple theories of liability and the appellate court cannot determine whether the jury based its verdict on an invalid theory that was improperly submitted.” Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc. v. Black, 652 S.W.3d 463 , 482 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2022, no pet.) (citing Casteel, 22 S.W.3d at 388 ).

2021Johnson’s proposed charge originally separated the apportionment question for Emerson’s marketing-defect liability and Emerson’s design-defect liability, but Emerson objected and insisted they be combined. 41 Emerson never made the trial court timely and plainly aware of any Casteel-type error in the apportionment question. 42 Having found the evidence sufficient to support one ground of recovery that affords complete relief, we decline to address an alternative ground. 38 Thota, 366 S.W.3d at 689 . 39 See Romero, 166 S.W.3d at 229 (“We need not consider whether [the defendant] was required to

2021Johnson’s proposed charge originally separated the apportionment question for Emerson’s marketing-defect liability and Emerson’s design-defect liability, but Emerson objected and insisted they be combined. 41 Emerson never made the trial court timely and plainly aware of any Casteel-type error in the apportionment question. 42 Having found the evidence sufficient to support one ground of recovery that affords complete relief, we decline to address an alternative ground. 38 Thota, 366 S.W.3d at 689 . 39 See Romero, 166 S.W.3d at 229 (“We need not consider whether [the defendant] was required to

2021Co. v. Casteel, 22 S.W.3d 378, 388 (Tex. 2000), or when the broad-form question commingles damage elements that are unsupported by legally sufficient evidence, Harris Cnty. v. Smith, 96 S.W.3d 230 , 233–34 (Tex. 2002).” In re Marriage of C.A.S. & D.P.S., 405 S.W.3d 373, 394 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2013, no pet.) (citing Thota v. Young, 366 S.W.3d 678, 680 (Tex. 2012)). “[I]n order to preserve Casteel-type error in a bench trial, the party must request additional or amended findings of fact that specifically draw the trial court’s attention to the complaint that one of the elements of damages include

2021Johnson’s proposed charge originally separated the apportionment question for Emerson’s marketing-defect liability and Emerson’s design-defect liability, but Emerson objected and insisted they be combined. 41 Emerson never made the trial court timely and plainly aware of any Casteel-type error in the apportionment question. 42 Having found the evidence sufficient to support one ground of recovery that affords complete relief, we decline to address an alternative ground. 38 Thota, 366 S.W.3d at 689 . 39 See Romero, 166 S.W.3d at 229 (“We need not consider whether [the defendant] was required to

2021Co. v. Casteel, 22 S.W.3d 378, 388 (Tex. 2000), or when the broad-form question commingles damage elements that are unsupported by legally sufficient evidence, Harris Cnty. v. Smith, 96 S.W.3d 230 , 233–34 (Tex. 2002).” In re Marriage of C.A.S. & D.P.S., 405 S.W.3d 373, 394 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2013, no pet.) (citing Thota v. Young, 366 S.W.3d 678, 680 (Tex. 2012)). “[I]n order to preserve Casteel-type error in a bench trial, the party must request additional or amended findings of fact that specifically draw the trial court’s attention to the complaint that one of the elements of damages include

2021Co. v. Casteel, 22 S.W.3d 378, 388 (Tex. 2000), or when the broad-form question commingles damage elements that are unsupported by legally sufficient evidence, Harris Cnty. v. Smith, 96 S.W.3d 230 , 233–34 (Tex. 2002).” In re Marriage of C.A.S. & D.P.S., 405 S.W.3d 373, 394 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2013, no pet.) (citing Thota v. Young, 366 S.W.3d 678, 680 (Tex. 2012)). “[I]n order to preserve Casteel-type error in a bench trial, the party must request additional or amended findings of fact that specifically draw the trial court’s attention to the complaint that one of the elements of damages include

2021Co. v. Casteel, 22 S.W.3d 378, 388 (Tex. 2000), or when the broad-form question commingles damage elements that are unsupported by legally sufficient evidence, Harris Cnty. v. Smith, 96 S.W.3d 230 , 233–34 (Tex. 2002).” In re Marriage of C.A.S. & D.P.S., 405 S.W.3d 373, 394 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2013, no pet.) (citing Thota v. Young, 366 S.W.3d 678, 680 (Tex. 2012)). “[I]n order to preserve Casteel-type error in a bench trial, the party must request additional or amended findings of fact that specifically draw the trial court’s attention to the complaint that one of the elements of damages include

2021While Macy’s contends the evidence is insufficient to support the trial court’s $25,000 award and Macy’s requested the trial court amend Conclusion of Law 3 or, alternatively, make additional findings of fact, Macy’s did not “draw the trial court’s attention to the complaint that one of the elements of damages included in the trial court’s broad-form finding was unsupported by the evidence.” See Marriage of C.A.S. & D.P.S., 405 S.W.3d at 394 .

2015Cf. Thomas v. Callaway, 251 S.W.2d 921, 926 (Tex.Civ.App.)San Antonio 1952, writ ref’d n.r.e.) (defendant has “duty to request proper issues and instructions” concerning mitigation of damages); Burbage v. Burbage, 447 S.W.3d 255 -56 (Tex.2014) (a Casteel-type objection is required to complain about a broad-form damages submission mixing valid and invalid elements of damages) (referring to Crown Life Ins.

2014See In re B.L.D., 113 S.W.3d at 349-50 (holding that a complaint to a jury charge was waived because it was not specifically included in an objection).