pjc-family-2024-lib

PJC 251.2

P RESERVATION OF C HARGE E RROR

PJC 251.2

Broad-Form Issues and the Casteel Doctrine (Comment)

In Crown Life Insurance Co. v. Casteel , 22 S.W.3d 378 (Tex. 2000), the supreme court held that inclusion of a legally invalid theory in a broad-form liability question taints the question and requires a new trial. Casteel , 22 S.W.3d at 388–89. The court has since extended this rule to legal sufficiency challenges to an element of a broad-form damages question, see Harris County v. Smith , 96 S.W.3d 230, 235–36 (Tex. 2002), and to complaints about inclusion of an invalid liability theory in a comparative responsibil ity finding, see Romero v. KPH Consolidation, Inc. , 166 S.W.3d 212, 226–28 (Tex. 2005). Note that in a suit for termination of the parent-child relationship, the jury must supply separate findings for each parent and each child on (1) each individual statutory ground for termination of the parent-child relationship and (2) whether termi nation of the parent-child relationship is in the best interest of the child. Tex. R. Civ. P. 277. See also PJC 218.1–218.3. The supreme court has recently clarified that harmful error must be presumed, as in Casteel , when an appellate court cannot determine whether the jury found liability on an improper basis because a necessary limiting instruction was not submitted despite a timely request or objection. Benge v. Williams , 548S.W.3d466, 475–76 (Tex.2018) (reiterating this proposition and stating that “we have twice held that when the ques tion allows a finding of liability based on evidence that cannot support recovery, the same presumption-of-harm rule [from Casteel ] must be applied”); see Texas Commis sion on Human Rights v. Morrison , 381S.W.3d533, 535 (Tex.2012) (percuriam); Columbia Rio Grande Healthcare, L.P. v. Hawley , 284 S.W.3d 851, 863 (Tex. 2009). When a broad-form submission is infeasible under the Casteel doctrine and a granu lated submission would cure the alleged charge defect, a specific objection to the broad form nature of the charge question is necessary to preserve error. Thota v. Young , 366 S.W.3d 678, 690–91 (Tex. 2012) (citing In re A.V. , 113 S.W.3d 355, 363 (Tex. 2003); In re B.L.D. , 113 S.W.3d 340, 349–50 (Tex. 2003)). But when a broad-form submission is infeasible under the Casteel doctrine and a granulated submission would still be errone ous because there is no evidence to support the submission of a separate question, a spe cific and timely objection “to the lack of evidence to support submission of a jury question,” to “the form of the submission,” or both is necessary. Burbage v. Burbage , 447 S.W.3d 249, 256 (Tex. 2014) (“[W]hether or not an objection to both [the lack of evidence to support submission of a jury question and the form of the submission] is required, some timely and specific objection must raise the issue in the trial court.”). However, “in 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.” Burbage , 447 S.W.3d at 256.

382