OPINION
Opinion by Chief Justice MORRISS.
In this high-stakes personal-injury, products-liability contest, there have been two trials that reached diametrically different results: the first, a multi-million dollar verdict; the second, a take-nothing verdict. After the take-nothing verdict, the trial court ordered a third trial. By petition for writ of mandamus, we are asked to override the trial court’s order granting a new trial. We deny the petition for writ of mandamus, because — although (1) Lufkin has no adequate remedy by appeal, and (2) the trial court’s reasons for granting a new trial are reviewable on appeal — (3) the trial court was within its discretion, on at least one ground, in granting a new trial.
Kelleigh Terran Falcon, Kierra Falcon, and Kelese Falcon were injured when the vehicle in which they were riding collided with, and ran under the side of, an eighteen-wheeler trailer manufactured by Luf-kin Industries, Inc. (Lufkin). Terrence Baker, as guardian of the person and estate of Kelleigh Terran Falcon, and as next friend for Kierra Falcon and Kelese Falcon, minor children (Baker), sued Luf-kin Industries, Inc., for products liability, asserting that Lufkin had a duty to install side under-ride guards on its eighteen-wheeler trailers. After an initial trial resulted in a multi-million dollar verdict, the parties agreed that a new trial was warranted, and one was granted.
After years of additional testing and discovery, a second trial was held. It lasted almost two months and resulted in a take-nothing judgment. Subsequently, the trial court, acting sua sponte and on Baker’s motion for new trial, granted a new trial, citing juror inattention, the brevity of jury deliberations, erroneous exclusion of evidence, newly discovered evidence, inadmissible evidence presented to the jury, and the interest of justice and fairness.
Seeking a writ of mandamus, Lufkin argues that the trial court abused its discretion by granting a new trial because the reasons for granting the new trial are not supported by the record, were not preserved, and are invalid, and because the new trial will deprive Lufkin of its constitutional right to a jury trial.
(1) Lufkin Has No Adequate Remedy by Appeal
Generally, mandamus will issue only to correct a clear abuse of discretion or the violation of a duty imposed by law. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839 (Tex.1992). It is available only if an adequate remedy by appeal does not exist. Perry Homes v. Cull, 258 S.W.3d 580, 586 (Tex.2008); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135-36 (Tex.2004). Mandamus should not issue to correct grievances that may be addressed by other remedies. See Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 840. [519]*519Whether a remedy by ordinary appeal is adequate so as to preclude mandamus review depends on the circumstances presented and is better guided by general principles than by simple rules.1 Prudential, 148 S.W.3d at 137.
In some cases, a remedy at' law may technically exist; however, it may nevertheless be so uncertain, tedious, burdensome, slow, inconvenient, inappropriate or ineffective as to be deemed inadequate. See, e.g., Houston & T.C. Ry. Co. v. City of Dallas, 98 Tex. 396, 84 S.W. 648, 656 (1905) (“there is not a plain, adequate, certain, and speedy remedy5’); City of Highland Park v. Dallas Ry. Co., 243 S.W. 674, 681 (Tex.Civ.App.-Dallas 1922, writ ref'd) (remedy must be “equally convenient, beneficial, and effective as the proceeding by mandamus”).
Given the subjective nature of such terms as “plain” and “uncertain,” “convenient” and “inconvenient,” “effective” and “ineffective,” this Court must examine the specific circumstances of each case and carefully exercise its discretion before deciding whether a particular remedy at law is adequate. See, e.g., Dickens v. Second Court of Appeals, 727 S.W.2d 542, 551-52 (Tex.Crim.App.1987) (discussing the adequacy of reviewing pretrial discovery orders through appeal). In addition, equitable principles are necessarily involved when we consider whether mandamus should issue. See Callahan v. Giles, 137 Tex. 571, 155 S.W.2d 793, 795 (1941).
Smith v. Flack, 728 S.W.2d 784, 792 (Tex.Crim.App.1987).
Lufkin’s only other possible alternative remedy to the trial court’s order is direct appeal to the court of appeals after a third trial. Under the extraordinary circumstances of this case, requiring the parties to endure a third trial before appellate review of the order for new trial is not “equally convenient [or] beneficial” as mandamus; rather, it is “tedious, burdensome, slow [and] inconvenient.” See id. Accordingly, we find Lufkin has no adequate remedy by appeal.
(2) The Trial Court’s Reasons for Granting a New Trial Are Reviewable on Appeal
Here, the trial court gave several specific reasons for granting a new trial. Lufkin argues that the trial court’s reasons are not supported by the record. Baker contends that, as long as the trial court’s reasons are specific enough to meet the requirements of In re Columbia Medical Center of Las Colinas, Subsidiary, L.P., 290 S.W.3d 204 (Tex.2009) (orig. proceeding),2 they are unreviewable. Although we find no explicit binding precedent on the subject, we disagree.
While a trial court has significant discretion in granting new trials, the Texas Supreme Court recently held that a trial court must specify the reasons it disre[520]*520garded the jury’s verdict by granting a new trial.3 Id. at 212-15. “The reasons should be clearly identified and reasonably specific. Broad statements such as ⅛ the interest of justice’ are not sufficiently specific.” Id. at 215. The court’s majority opinion explained that, while a trial court has considerable discretion in granting a new trial, that discretion has limits. Id. at 210. That “discretion should not, and does not, permit a trial judge to substitute his or her own views for that of the jury without a valid basis.” Id. at 212. By stating that the trial court must have a “valid basis” for granting a new trial, the Court is, in effect, authorizing appellate review of the reasons given. Otherwise, who is to say whether the reasons given are “valid”?
Even if we read too much into the Texas Supreme Court’s words, there is a further basis for having appellate review of the reasons given for the new trial. The law does not require a vain or useless act. See City of Gladewater v. Pike, 727 S.W.2d 514, 518 (Tex.1987) (stating the equitable maxim that “a court should not require the doing of a useless thing”).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
OPINION
Opinion by Chief Justice MORRISS.
In this high-stakes personal-injury, products-liability contest, there have been two trials that reached diametrically different results: the first, a multi-million dollar verdict; the second, a take-nothing verdict. After the take-nothing verdict, the trial court ordered a third trial. By petition for writ of mandamus, we are asked to override the trial court’s order granting a new trial. We deny the petition for writ of mandamus, because — although (1) Lufkin has no adequate remedy by appeal, and (2) the trial court’s reasons for granting a new trial are reviewable on appeal — (3) the trial court was within its discretion, on at least one ground, in granting a new trial.
Kelleigh Terran Falcon, Kierra Falcon, and Kelese Falcon were injured when the vehicle in which they were riding collided with, and ran under the side of, an eighteen-wheeler trailer manufactured by Luf-kin Industries, Inc. (Lufkin). Terrence Baker, as guardian of the person and estate of Kelleigh Terran Falcon, and as next friend for Kierra Falcon and Kelese Falcon, minor children (Baker), sued Luf-kin Industries, Inc., for products liability, asserting that Lufkin had a duty to install side under-ride guards on its eighteen-wheeler trailers. After an initial trial resulted in a multi-million dollar verdict, the parties agreed that a new trial was warranted, and one was granted.
After years of additional testing and discovery, a second trial was held. It lasted almost two months and resulted in a take-nothing judgment. Subsequently, the trial court, acting sua sponte and on Baker’s motion for new trial, granted a new trial, citing juror inattention, the brevity of jury deliberations, erroneous exclusion of evidence, newly discovered evidence, inadmissible evidence presented to the jury, and the interest of justice and fairness.
Seeking a writ of mandamus, Lufkin argues that the trial court abused its discretion by granting a new trial because the reasons for granting the new trial are not supported by the record, were not preserved, and are invalid, and because the new trial will deprive Lufkin of its constitutional right to a jury trial.
(1) Lufkin Has No Adequate Remedy by Appeal
Generally, mandamus will issue only to correct a clear abuse of discretion or the violation of a duty imposed by law. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839 (Tex.1992). It is available only if an adequate remedy by appeal does not exist. Perry Homes v. Cull, 258 S.W.3d 580, 586 (Tex.2008); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135-36 (Tex.2004). Mandamus should not issue to correct grievances that may be addressed by other remedies. See Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 840. [519]*519Whether a remedy by ordinary appeal is adequate so as to preclude mandamus review depends on the circumstances presented and is better guided by general principles than by simple rules.1 Prudential, 148 S.W.3d at 137.
In some cases, a remedy at' law may technically exist; however, it may nevertheless be so uncertain, tedious, burdensome, slow, inconvenient, inappropriate or ineffective as to be deemed inadequate. See, e.g., Houston & T.C. Ry. Co. v. City of Dallas, 98 Tex. 396, 84 S.W. 648, 656 (1905) (“there is not a plain, adequate, certain, and speedy remedy5’); City of Highland Park v. Dallas Ry. Co., 243 S.W. 674, 681 (Tex.Civ.App.-Dallas 1922, writ ref'd) (remedy must be “equally convenient, beneficial, and effective as the proceeding by mandamus”).
Given the subjective nature of such terms as “plain” and “uncertain,” “convenient” and “inconvenient,” “effective” and “ineffective,” this Court must examine the specific circumstances of each case and carefully exercise its discretion before deciding whether a particular remedy at law is adequate. See, e.g., Dickens v. Second Court of Appeals, 727 S.W.2d 542, 551-52 (Tex.Crim.App.1987) (discussing the adequacy of reviewing pretrial discovery orders through appeal). In addition, equitable principles are necessarily involved when we consider whether mandamus should issue. See Callahan v. Giles, 137 Tex. 571, 155 S.W.2d 793, 795 (1941).
Smith v. Flack, 728 S.W.2d 784, 792 (Tex.Crim.App.1987).
Lufkin’s only other possible alternative remedy to the trial court’s order is direct appeal to the court of appeals after a third trial. Under the extraordinary circumstances of this case, requiring the parties to endure a third trial before appellate review of the order for new trial is not “equally convenient [or] beneficial” as mandamus; rather, it is “tedious, burdensome, slow [and] inconvenient.” See id. Accordingly, we find Lufkin has no adequate remedy by appeal.
(2) The Trial Court’s Reasons for Granting a New Trial Are Reviewable on Appeal
Here, the trial court gave several specific reasons for granting a new trial. Lufkin argues that the trial court’s reasons are not supported by the record. Baker contends that, as long as the trial court’s reasons are specific enough to meet the requirements of In re Columbia Medical Center of Las Colinas, Subsidiary, L.P., 290 S.W.3d 204 (Tex.2009) (orig. proceeding),2 they are unreviewable. Although we find no explicit binding precedent on the subject, we disagree.
While a trial court has significant discretion in granting new trials, the Texas Supreme Court recently held that a trial court must specify the reasons it disre[520]*520garded the jury’s verdict by granting a new trial.3 Id. at 212-15. “The reasons should be clearly identified and reasonably specific. Broad statements such as ⅛ the interest of justice’ are not sufficiently specific.” Id. at 215. The court’s majority opinion explained that, while a trial court has considerable discretion in granting a new trial, that discretion has limits. Id. at 210. That “discretion should not, and does not, permit a trial judge to substitute his or her own views for that of the jury without a valid basis.” Id. at 212. By stating that the trial court must have a “valid basis” for granting a new trial, the Court is, in effect, authorizing appellate review of the reasons given. Otherwise, who is to say whether the reasons given are “valid”?
Even if we read too much into the Texas Supreme Court’s words, there is a further basis for having appellate review of the reasons given for the new trial. The law does not require a vain or useless act. See City of Gladewater v. Pike, 727 S.W.2d 514, 518 (Tex.1987) (stating the equitable maxim that “a court should not require the doing of a useless thing”). If we were to determine that the trial court’s reasons for granting a new trial were not reviewable on appeal, we would be saying that the court’s requirement that a trial court give reasons for its ruling was a useless requirement.
Among the rationales used by the Texas Supreme Court in requiring trial courts to express reasons for granting new trials are that the requirement enhances respect for the rule of law, provides transparency for the legal system, and respects expectations of parties and the public from a jury trial. Columbia Med. Ctr., 290 S.W.3d at 213. Each of those purposes is supported by making the reasons reviewable; each element is sullied by having any reasons be unreviewable.
We conclude, therefore, that the trial court’s reasons for granting a new trial are subject to appellate review.
(3) The Trial Court Was Within Its Discretion, on at Least One Ground, in Granting a New Trial
Here, the trial court granted a new trial based on (1) juror inattention, (2) length of jury deliberations, (3) the exclusion of evidence, (4) newly discovered evidence, (5) the injection of inadmissible evidence before the jury,4 and (6) the interest of justice and fairness. So long as the trial court is within its discretion to grant a new trial for even one of its stated [521]*521reasons, the order granting a new trial will be affirmed and mandamus relief will be denied. Here, because we find the trial court was within its discretion in at least one of its stated reasons for granting a new trial, we need not review the remaining reasons given.
In detailing its reasons, the trial court stated:
The Defendant showed an unredacted copy of the police report to the Jury that informed them that the two children in the back seat of the Ford Taurus were not restrained. This was directly contrary to the Court’s ruling on this admissibility of this matter. Having seen the effect that this had, the Court believes that [a] new trial is warranted on this basis....
... The Defendant displayed a photograph of the backseat [sic] of the Ford Taurus and speculated that items in the rear seat indicated that the driver was inattentive at the time leading up to this collision.... [T]he court believes this inexcusable conduct nevertheless constitutes prejudice and harm necessitating a new trial.
Lufkin did not indicate to the jury that the children were unrestrained, but did point out a mascara container that appeared in the photograph of the back seat floorboard of the car and asked whether “putting on makeup in a vehicle” was “a distraction.”
Trial courts are allowed “great discretion” in the granting of new trials. Id. at 214. Trial judges have the benefit of observing the dynamics and atmosphere of the courtroom as well as the demeanor, tone, and tenor of witnesses, attorneys, and jurors — factors that may not be reflected in the record. See Murff v. Pass, 249 S.W.3d 407, 411 (Tex.2008) (per curiam) (citing Hyundai Motor Co. v. Vasquez, 189 S.W.3d 743, 753 (Tex.2006)); see also Columbia Med. Ctr., 290 S.W.3d at 220 (O’Neill, J., dissenting). Similarly, in jury voir dire issues, the Supreme Court of Texas has noted that an interpretation of juror behavior “turns on the courtroom context, and perhaps the looks on their faces.” Hyundai Motor Co., 189 S.W.3d at 755. We believe the same to be applicable in this case.
Here, the trial court reviewed “the pleadings and evidence” as well as “its own notes from the proceedings,” and it noticed the “effect” of and “prejudice and harm” caused by the inadmissible police report and Lufkin’s statements to the jury regarding the driver’s possible inattention. Affording great discretion to the trial court in its firsthand observations and viewing the record in the light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling, we find that the trial court was within its discretion to grant a new trial because of the inadmissible evidence being shown and argued to the jury.
We deny the petition for writ of mandamus.
Concurring Opinion by Justice CARTER.