The Texas Court of Appeals recently granted a petition for writ of mandamus in the case of In Re W. Murray Thompson Construction Co., Inc. v. the State of Texas (Docket No. 13-26-00215-CV). This decision affects W. Murray Thompson Construction Co., Inc. (relator), which faced a renewed trial after a jury's verdict in a case involving a fatal construction accident. The court ruled that the trial court abused its discretion by granting a new trial after a lengthy legal process spanning over 15 years.

The case stems from a tragic incident that occurred on July 10, 2009, during renovations at Sullivan Elementary School in San Benito, Texas. The San Benito Consolidated Independent School District (SBCISD) contracted W. Murray Thompson Construction Co. as the general contractor for the project. The construction company hired E&J Masonry, Inc. as a subcontractor. Unfortunately, an employee of E&J, Ruben Villegas, suffered fatal injuries when a telehandler he was operating rolled over on a sloped surface. Following the accident, Villegas died a week later.

Villegas's estate, represented by co-administrators Priscilla Aguilar-Villegas and Maria Irma Juarez, filed a lawsuit against W. Murray Thompson Construction Co. and others, claiming negligence. The case was first presented to a jury in 2011, which found W. Murray Thompson Construction Co. 10% responsible for the incident, while E&J was deemed 60% responsible and Villegas himself was found 30% responsible. The jury awarded damages totaling $1,212,000, but the trial court later reduced the medical expenses awarded to Villegas's estate.

After the initial trial, the plaintiffs sought a new trial, which the trial court granted in June 2011, citing that the jury's verdict was “manifestly unjust.” The case then remained dormant for several years before being retried in 2025. During the second trial, the jury found that W. Murray Thompson Construction Co. did not exercise control over the job site, leading to a take-nothing judgment against the plaintiffs.

In December 2025, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a new trial, claiming the verdict was not supported by sufficient evidence. The trial court granted this motion on January 28, 2026, stating that W. Murray Thompson Construction Co. retained contractual control over the work and that the jury's findings were against the great weight of the evidence.

In response, W. Murray Thompson Construction Co. filed a petition for writ of mandamus, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion by granting a new trial. The Texas Court of Appeals agreed with the relator, stating, “The trial court’s reasons for setting aside a jury’s verdict must be specifically set forth in the order granting a new trial.” The court emphasized that the trial court's reasoning lacked sufficient support from the evidence presented during the trial.

The court ruled that the trial court did not adequately justify its decision to grant a new trial, particularly regarding the contractual relationship and control over the subcontractor's work. The opinion noted that the trial court's conclusions were not supported by the evidence and that the jury’s verdict should stand.

This ruling has significant implications for the construction industry and general contractor liability. It reinforces the principle that trial courts must provide clear and specific reasons for granting new trials, particularly when a jury has already reached a verdict. The decision also highlights the importance of contractual relationships and the responsibilities of general contractors regarding subcontractors.

Moving forward, this ruling sets a precedent for how courts may handle similar cases involving construction accidents and the responsibilities of contractors. It also emphasizes the need for trial courts to carefully consider the evidence before overturning a jury's verdict.

As for what’s next, it remains to be seen whether the plaintiffs will appeal this ruling. The court's decision to grant the writ of mandamus effectively halts the new trial ordered by the trial court, but the plaintiffs may seek further legal recourse. Details regarding any potential appeals or related cases were not available in the court filing.