Petition for Writ of Mandamus - Filed - Supreme Court of Texas
Petition for Writ of Mandamus - Filed - Supreme Court of Texas
Petition for Writ of Mandamus - Filed - Supreme Court of Texas
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
As Justice Sullivan pointed out, the year be<strong>for</strong>e Luns<strong>for</strong>d was decided, th e<br />
Legislature began the process <strong>of</strong> restricting the availability <strong>of</strong> punitive damages b y<br />
enacting Chapter 41 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Texas</strong> Civil Practice and Remedies Code . '2 In 1995, the<br />
Legislature enacted more sweeping tort re<strong>for</strong>m to the law <strong>of</strong> punitive damages ,<br />
substantially rewriting Chapter 41 to provide significant protection against a punitiv e<br />
damages award :<br />
a<br />
s<br />
a<br />
Juries could no longer award punitive damages designed to serve as a n<br />
example to others," but were instead limited to assessing damages wit h<br />
the limited purpose <strong>of</strong> punishing the wrongdoer .<br />
Chapter 41's coverage was extended to all but a few types <strong>of</strong> tor t<br />
actions .<br />
The "clear and convincing" standard <strong>of</strong> pro<strong>of</strong> was required to prove al l<br />
elements <strong>of</strong> punitive damages .<br />
© With a few exceptions, a defendant could no longer be held responsibl e<br />
<strong>for</strong> punitive damages based on the conduct <strong>of</strong> another .<br />
o The cap on punitive damages was lowered .<br />
0 On the defendant's motion, the trial court was required to bifurcate th e<br />
trial <strong>for</strong> a separate determination <strong>of</strong> the amount <strong>of</strong> punitive damages ,<br />
and evidence <strong>of</strong> a defendant's net worth was not admissible during the<br />
liability phase <strong>of</strong> the bifurcated trial . t '<br />
These changes limited both (a) the amount <strong>of</strong> any exemplary damages award, and (b) the<br />
likelihood that any punitive damages award would be made . Id. In 2003, the Legislature<br />
enacted a comprehensive tort-re<strong>for</strong>m package that included the new requirement that a<br />
12 In re Mark A. Jacobs, M.D ., 2009 Tex. App. LEXIS 8112 at *33 (Sullivan, J., concurring) (Apx . Tab G) ; see Ac t<br />
<strong>of</strong> June 3. 1987, 70th Leg ., 1st C.S., ch. 2, § 2.12, 1987 Tex . Geri. Laws 37, 44 (amended 1995 &. 2003) (curren t<br />
version at TEX. CIV. PRAC . & REM. CODE §§ 41 .001 - 41 .013).<br />
" See Act <strong>of</strong> April 11, 1995, 74th Leg . . R.S ., ch. 19, § 1, 1995 Tex . Gen. Laws 108, 108-13 (amended 2003) (curren t<br />
version at TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM . CODE §y 41 .001 - 41 .013) ; In re Jacobs, 2009 Tex. App. LEXIS 8112 a t<br />
*37 (Sullivan, J ., concurring) .<br />
11