Casteel error in Texas

2017“Casteel issues do not arise in every situation where a jury has more than one legal theory to choose from when answering a single question.” Ford Motor Co. v. Castillo, 444 S.W.3d 616, 621 (Tex. 2014); see Thota v. Young, 366 S.W.3d 678 (Tex. 2012) (declining to extend scope of Casteel rule to defensive theory of contributory negligence). 47.

2016See Tex. Comm’n on Human Rights v. Morrison, 381 S.W.3d 533, 536 (Tex.2012) (per curiam) (“Casteel error may be preserved without specifically mentioning Casteel.”); Thota v. Young, 366 S.W.3d 678, 691 (Tex.2012) (“[Wjithout some objection to the charge, claiming the submitted theory had no evidentiary support, or an objection to the form of the charge, any complaint of charge error was not preserved for review by the court of appeals.”).

2024But because the broad-form question, combined with the court’s refusal to submit the requested instruction, permitted the jury to answer the question by finding “liability based on evidence that cannot support recovery,” we held that “the same presumption-of-harm rule must be applied.” Id.; see Morrison, 381 S.W.3d at 536 (applying Casteel presumption where broad-form question allowed the jury to find liability based on a jurisdictionally barred allegation).

2024But because the broad-form question, combined with the court’s refusal to submit the requested instruction, permitted the jury to answer the question by finding “liability based on evidence that cannot support recovery,” we held that “the same presumption-of-harm rule must be applied.” Id.; see Morrison, 381 S.W.3d at 536 (applying Casteel presumption where broad-form question allowed the jury to find liability based on a jurisdictionally barred allegation).

2015And in Thota v. Young the Court cautioned against allowing the Casteel exception to swallow the rule: Notwithstanding Casteel’s presumed harm analysis in situations that erroneously commingle valid and invalid theories of liability, we have repeatedly reaffirmed our longstanding, fundamental commitment to broad-form submission. 366 S.W.3d 678, 689 (Tex. 2012); see also Harris County, 96 S.W.3d at 235 (“Neither our decision today nor Casteel is a retrenchment from our fundamental commitment to broad-form submission.”).

2015And in Thota v. Young the Court cautioned against allowing the Casteel exception to swallow the rule: Notwithstanding Casteel’s presumed harm analysis in situations that erroneously commingle valid and invalid theories of liability, we have repeatedly reaffirmed our longstanding, fundamental commitment to broad-form submission. 366 S.W.3d 678, 689 (Tex. 2012); see also Harris County, 96 S.W.3d at 235 (“Neither our decision today nor Casteel is a retrenchment from our fundamental commitment to broad-form submission.”).

2016See Tex. Comm'n on Human Rights v. Morrison, 381 S.W.3d 533 , 536 (Tex.2012) ("We require only objections, not correct questions, to preserve Casteel error."); Romero v. KPH Consol., Inc., 166 S.W.3d 212 , 228 (Tex.2005) (concluding that appellant had preserved its Casteel complaint).

2013Cf. Tex. Com’n on Human Rights v. Morrison, 381 S.W.3d 533, 536 (Tex.2012) (per curiam) (“We require only objections, not correct questions, to preserve Casteel error.”); Romero, 166 S.W.3d at 229 (appellant was not required to request multiple apportionment questions; it was sufficient that appellant objected to the inclusion of an invalid theory of liability in the single apportionment question).

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.”).

2011HP points out that the Supreme Court of Texas has “limited [its] holdings in Casteel and Harris County to submission of a broad-form question incorporating multiple theories of liability or multiple damage elements.” Bed, Bath & Beyond, Inc. v. Urista, 211 S.W.3d 753, 756-57 (Tex.2006) (citing Casteel, 22 S.W.3d at 388 and Harris County v. Smith, 96 S.W.3d 230, 233 (Tex.2002), which applied Casteel analysis to submission of an unsupported element of damages).

2011HP points out that the Supreme Court of Texas has “limited [its] holdings in Casteel and Harris County to submission of a broad-form question incorporating multiple theories of liability or multiple damage elements.” Bed, Bath & Beyond, Inc. v. Urista , 211 S.W. 3d 753 , 756–57 (Tex. 2006) (citing Casteel , 22 S.W. 3d at 388 and Harris County v. Smith , 96 S.W.3d 230, 233 (Tex. 2002), which applied Casteel analysis to submission of an unsupported element of damages).

2003Cf. Lemos v. Montez , 680 S.W.2d 798, 801 (Tex. 1984) (disavowing the proliferation of jury instructions in favor of simplicity in jury charges); Excel , 51 S.W.3d at 700 (refusing to apply Casteel analysis to broad-form negligence special question); Crawford , 828 S.W.2d at 799-800 (holding trial court correctly submitted broad-form negligence question in medical negligence case and did not abuse its discretion by refusing to submit instructions concerning specific pleaded acts of negligence).

2003Cf. Lemos v. Montez , 680 S.W.2d 798, 801 (Tex. 1984) (disavowing the proliferation of jury instructions in favor of simplicity in jury charges); Excel , 51 S.W.3d at 700 (refusing to apply Casteel analysis to broad-form negligence special question); Crawford , 828 S.W.2d at 799-800 (holding trial court correctly submitted broad-form negligence question in medical negligence case and did not abuse its discretion by refusing to submit instructions concerning specific pleaded acts of negligence).

2003Cf. Lemos v. Montez , 680 S.W.2d 798, 801 (Tex. 1984) (disavowing the proliferation of jury instructions in favor of simplicity in jury charges); Excel , 51 S.W.3d at 700 (refusing to apply Casteel analysis to broad-form negligence special question); Crawford , 828 S.W.2d at 799-800 (holding trial court correctly submitted broad-form negligence question in medical negligence case and did not abuse its discretion by refusing to submit instructions concerning specific pleaded acts of negligence).

2003Cf. Lemos v. Montez , 680 S.W.2d 798, 801 (Tex. 1984) (disavowing the proliferation of jury instructions in favor of simplicity in jury charges); Excel , 51 S.W.3d at 700 (refusing to apply Casteel analysis to broad-form negligence special question); Crawford , 828 S.W.2d at 799-800 (holding trial court correctly submitted broad-form negligence question in medical negligence case and did not abuse its discretion by refusing to submit instructions concerning specific pleaded acts of negligence).

2003Cf. Lemos v. Montez , 680 S.W.2d 798, 801 (Tex. 1984) (disavowing the proliferation of jury instructions in favor of simplicity in jury charges); Excel , 51 S.W.3d at 700 (refusing to apply Casteel analysis to broad-form negligence special question); Crawford , 828 S.W.2d at 799-800 (holding trial court correctly submitted broad-form negligence question in medical negligence case and did not abuse its discretion by refusing to submit instructions concerning specific pleaded acts of negligence).

2003Cf. Lemos v. Montez , 680 S.W.2d 798, 801 (Tex. 1984) (disavowing the proliferation of jury instructions in favor of simplicity in jury charges); Excel , 51 S.W.3d at 700 (refusing to apply Casteel analysis to broad-form negligence special question); Crawford , 828 S.W.2d at 799-800 (holding trial court correctly submitted broad-form negligence question in medical negligence case and did not abuse its discretion by refusing to submit instructions concerning specific pleaded acts of negligence).

2015Id. at gle theory of liability, presents a Casteel issue. 450.

2015See Thota, 366 S.W.3d at 692–93 (concluding that “even assuming the new and independent cause instruction in this charge constituted error, it does not raise a Casteel issue”); Urista, 211 S.W.3d at 756–57 (declining to extend Casteel's presumed- harm analysis to trial court's submission of an erroneous unavoidable-accident instruction). 8 Section 2.606(a) provides: (a) Acceptance of goods occurs when the buyer (1) after a reasonable opportunity to inspect the goods signifies to the seller that the goods are conforming or that he will take or retain them in spite of their nonconformity; or (2)

2018See id.

2015Id. 53883200 53 Likewise, in McFarland, the First Court of Appeals held it was reversible error to submit a single broad-form damages question that did not separately list each allegedly defamatory statement. 365 S.W.3d at 453-54 ; see also Benge v. Williams, No. 01-12-00578-CV, 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 12445, at *45 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Nov. 18, 2014, no pet.) (rejecting argument that Casteel error did not apply in analogous context); Sand Point Ranch, Ltd. v. Smith, 363 S.W.3d 268, 274-75 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2012, no pet.) (finding reversible error in submitting a broad-form ques

2024Co. v. Berry-Helfand, 491 S.W.3d 699, 728 (Tex. 2016) (“In some cases, such as preserved Casteel error, harm may be presumed.”).29 The presumption employment-discrimination liability question to specify discriminatory termination rather than a term that encompassed actions that had not been administratively exhausted); Hawley, 284 S.W.3d at 863–65 (holding it was error to deny a limiting instruction that the jury should not consider actions of a doctor who was not the hospital’s agent in determining hospital’s liability).

2024Co. v. Berry-Helfand, 491 S.W.3d 699, 728 (Tex. 2016) (“In some cases, such as preserved Casteel error, harm may be presumed.”).29 The presumption employment-discrimination liability question to specify discriminatory termination rather than a term that encompassed actions that had not been administratively exhausted); Hawley, 284 S.W.3d at 863–65 (holding it was error to deny a limiting instruction that the jury should not consider actions of a doctor who was not the hospital’s agent in determining hospital’s liability).

2018P. 274 (“Any complaint as to a question, definition, or instruction, on account of any defect, omission, or fault in pleading, is waived unless specifically included in the objections.”); Memon v. Shaikh, 401 S.W.3d 407, 417 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013, no pet.) (holding in defamation case that, even if each statement listed in the jury charge was considered a “separate liability theory,” and even if two of those statements lacked evidentiary support, the appellant did not preserve Casteel error because he “failed to object to the damages question”), judgm’t withdrawn w.r.m., No. 14-1

2018P. 274 (“Any complaint as to a question, definition, or instruction, on account of any defect, omission, or fault in pleading, is waived unless specifically included in the objections.”); Memon v. Shaikh, 401 S.W.3d 407, 417 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013, no pet.) (holding in defamation case that, even if each statement listed in the jury charge was considered a “separate liability theory,” and even if two of those statements lacked evidentiary support, the appellant did not preserve Casteel error because he “failed to object to the damages question”), judgm’t withdrawn w.r.m., No. 14-1

2015Whether Dr. Benge preserved Casteel error Any complaint to a jury charge, including "complaints of error in broad-form submission," is waived unless a party "make[s] the trial court aware of the complaint, timely and plainly, and obtain[s] a ruling." In re B.L.D., 113 S.W.3d 340, 349 (Tex. 2003).

2014Whether Dr. Benge preserved Casteel error Any complaint to a jury charge, including “complaints of error in broad- form submission,” is waived unless a party “make[s] the trial court aware of the complaint, timely and plainly, and obtain[s] a ruling.” In re B.L.D., 113 S.W.3d 340, 349 (Tex. 2003).

2015Like the court of appeals in Thota, the See Block v. Mora, 314 S.W.3d 440, 450 (Tex. Block court held that because ‘‘the trial court App.-Amarillo 2009, pet. dism’d by agr.).

2012See Block v. Mora, 314 S.W.3d 440, 450 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 2009, pet. dism’d by agr.).

2014Shelby argues the submission of single broad-form question in the disjunctive involves Casteel error when the “either/or” scenarios are not “true opposites” that are “mutually exclusive” because that type of question prevents “the parties and the appellate courts from being able to determine exactly what the jury found.” In support of this argument, Shelby cites Schrock v. Sisco, 229 S.W.Sd 392 (Tex.App.-Eastland 2007, no pet.), and Iron Mountain Bison Ranch, Inc. v. Easley Trailer Mfg., Inc., 42 S.W.3d 149 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 2000, no pet.).

2001See Iron Mountain Bison Ranch, Inc. v. Easley Trailer Mfg., 42 S.W.3d 149, 162 (Tex.App.—Amarillo 2000, no pet.). 8 .

2020Id. at 475–76; see also Brannan Paving GP v. Pavement Markings, Inc., 446 S.W.3d 14 , 23–25 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2013, pet. denied) (broad-form submission that includes invalid affirmative defense within the liability question subject to Casteel rule).

2018Co-op., 157 S.W.3d 429 (Tex. 2005) (holding Casteel’s presumption of harm does not apply); and Reinhart v. Young, 906 S.W.2d 471, 473 (Tex. 1995) (holding a harmless error analysis is applicable).

2017“Casteel issues do not arise in every situation where a jury has more than one legal theory to choose from when answering a single question.” Ford Motor Co. v. Castillo, 444 S.W.3d 616, 621 (Tex. 2014); see Thota v. Young, 366 S.W.3d 678 (Tex. 2012) (declining to extend scope of Casteel rule to defensive theory of contributory negligence). 47.

2016See Miranda v. Byles, 390 S.W.3d 543, 552 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2012, pet. denied) (op. on reh’g) (“The corollary to [the Harris County/Casteel error-preservation] rule in bench trials is a party must ask for additional findings of fact and conclusions of law asking for a detailed apportionment of findings between the permissible and impermissible bases for liability.”), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 373 , 190 L.Ed.2d 253 (2014).

2016See Miranda v. Byles, 390 S.W.3d 543, 552 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2012, pet. denied) (op. on reh’g) (“The corollary to [the Harris County/Casteel error-preservation] rule in bench trials is a party must ask for additional findings of fact and conclusions of law asking for a detailed apportionment of findings between the permissible and impermissible bases for liability.”), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 373 , 190 L.Ed.2d 253 (2014).

2016See Miranda v. Byles, 390 S.W.3d 543, 552 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2012, pet. denied) (op. on reh’g) (“The corollary to [the Harris County/Casteel error-preservation] rule in bench trials is a party must ask for additional findings of fact and conclusions of law asking for a detailed apportionment of findings between the permissible and impermissible bases for liability.”), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 373 , 190 L.Ed.2d 253 (2014).

2015Id. 53883200 53 Likewise, in McFarland, the First Court of Appeals held it was reversible error to submit a single broad-form damages question that did not separately list each allegedly defamatory statement. 365 S.W.3d at 453-54 ; see also Benge v. Williams, No. 01-12-00578-CV, 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 12445, at *45 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Nov. 18, 2014, no pet.) (rejecting argument that Casteel error did not apply in analogous context); Sand Point Ranch, Ltd. v. Smith, 363 S.W.3d 268, 274-75 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2012, no pet.) (finding reversible error in submitting a broad-form ques