Can I Recover for Mental Anguish as Part of My Texas Personal Injury Claim?

The phrase “mental anguish” is commonly used in tv shows, movies, articles, books, and other forms of media. Many people have probably heard or encountered the phrase, even if they have never personally been involved in a lawsuit. The term mental anguish is generally used to describe psychological or emotional harm, as opposed to a physical injury, but the exact meaning of the phrase can vary depending on the context.

This article focuses on mental anguish damages under Texas law and discusses some of the most important concepts and issues relating to mental anguish damages in Texas personal injury claims.

How Does Current Texas Law Define Mental Anguish?

Current Texas law defines mental anguish as “a high degree of mental pain and distress that is more than mere worry, anxiety, vexation, embarrassment, or anger, or that demonstrates a significant disruption of a person’s daily routine.” Bennett v. Grant, 525 S.W.3d 642, 648 (Tex. 2017).

Mental anguish damages are difficult to quantify, and the Texas Supreme Court has acknowledged that non-economic damages such as mental anguish “cannot be determined by mathematical precision; by their nature, they can be determined only by the exercise of sound judgment.” Bentley v. Bunton, 94 S.W.3d 561, 605 (Tex. 2002).

Current Texas Law Regarding Mental Anguish Can be Better Understood by Looking at its History.

Like most things, the law is not static, and it evolves, develops, and changes over time. To better understand the current Texas law regarding mental anguish damages, it is helpful to look back at the past and trace how the legal concepts relating to mental anguish damages have developed into the current status quo.

One of the current leading cases on mental anguish damages in Texas is Parkway Co. v. Woodruff, 901 S.W.2d 434 (Tex.1995). This case established the legal standards in Texas for recovering mental anguish damages which are used today, and most analyses of mental anguish in Texas law distinguish between “pre-Parkway” (the previous legal standards) and “post-Parkway” (the current legal standard). The Texas Supreme Court’s opinion in this case also provides a good historical overview of how mental anguish damages developed in American common law and Texas law.

Early American Common Law Did Not Allow Mental Anguish Damages in Any Situation, but as the Law Evolved the Right to Recover Mental Anguish Damages was Recognized and Expanded.

Mental anguish damages were historically distrusted by the Anglo-American common law, and this trend continued after America gained its independence from England. For a long time, American common law did not allow mental anguish damages to be recovered in any context at all. The most commonly articulated justifications for this approach were that:

1) Mental anguish is inherently subjective; and

2) It was believed there was a higher probability of false claims being made for mental anguish as opposed to other types of damages because mental anguish is subjective.

As American common law developed with the passage of time, the absolute ban on allowing recovery for mental anguish damages was loosened and the recovery of mental anguish damages was generally permitted in situations where:

1) The mental suffering was accompanied by a physical injury from an impact; or

2) The mental suffering was produced by a particularly upsetting or disturbing event.

As time went on, many states further loosened their legal restrictions on recovering mental anguish damages and allowed mental anguish damages to be recovered in an increasing number of situations. By the mid 1980’s, most states had done away with the requirement of a physical impact injury to recover mental anguish damages, replacing it with a rule that allowed mental anguish damages to be recovered as long as the mental anguish physically manifested itself. Some states went even further and completely got rid of the requirement that mental anguish have any physical manifestation.

Texas Law Initially Did Not Allow Mental Anguish Damages in Any Situation, but as Texas Law Evolved and Developed, the Right to Recover Mental Anguish Damages was Recognized and Expanded.

Texas law generally followed a course of development similar to American common law in relation to mental anguish damages. Like other American common law jurisdictions, Texas law initially did not allow mental anguish damages to be recovered in any situation. When Texas law did start allowing the recovery of mental anguish damages, they could only be recovered where the claimant had a physical injury. Around the beginning of the 20th century, Texas law began allowing mental anguish damages to be recovered in situations without a physical injury if the mental anguish had a physical manifestation. One of the earliest recorded Texas cases discussing these issues is Hill v. Kimball, 76 Tex. 210, 13 S.W. 59, 59 (1890), which is mentioned by the Texas Supreme Court in its Parkway  opinion.

Texas law continued its evolution away from the requirements of a physical injury as a precursor to the recovery of mental anguish damages, and in the late 1980’s the Texas Supreme Court recognized that bystanders have the right to recover mental anguish damages in some situations in its opinion in Freeman v. City of Pasadena, 744 S.W.2d 923, 923-24 (Tex. 1988). Similarly, in 1987 Texas abandoned the requirement that mental anguish must have a physical manifestation in order to allow the recovery of mental anguish damages, as articulated by the Texas Supreme Court in the case of St. Elizabeth Hosp. v. Garrard, 730 S.W.2d 649, 654 (Tex. 1987).

The Expanding Right to Recover Mental Anguish Under Texas Law Led the Texas Supreme Court to Establish a New Legal Standard for Mental Anguish Damages in Parkway Co. v. Woodruff.

The trend of expanding circumstances where Texas law allowed the recovery of mental anguish damages led to what the Texas Supreme Court perceived as growing confusion and lack of clarity in Texas law regarding mental anguish damages. In its opinion in Parkway Co. v. Woodruff, 901 S.W.2d 434 (Tex.1995), the Texas Supreme Court started its discussion of mental anguish damages by “emphasiz[ing] the limited nature of [its] inquiry…focusing only on the type of evidence required to support an award of mental anguish damages in cases in which recovery is allowed.”

However, the Texas Supreme Court also expressed its view in the  Parkway   opinion that Texas law previously “followed an ad hoc pattern of development” on the issue of mental anguish damages, and observed that “Texas courts have struggled to distinguish between the events that justify mental anguish damages and those that do not.” Parkway, 901 S.W.2d at 443. The Court further expressed its view that “the early requirements [in Texas law] for establishing the recoverability of mental anguish damages served primarily as proxies for direct evidence of mental injury” and that “the erosion of these proxies as a substitute for proof of mental anguish has created a vacuum of sorts.” Parkway, 901 S.W.2d at 444.

The Court went on to describe the definition of mental anguish used at that time as one that can be “confounding” for both jurors charged with determining whether to award mental anguish damages and how much to award and for the appellate courts tasked with reviewing those jury decisions. Parkway, 901 S.W.2d at 444. The Court further also the observation that determining mental anguish damages “requires a jury to distinguish between disappointment and severe disappointment, between embarrassment and wounded pride, between anger and indignation. It is little wonder that courts and juries have found this and similar definitions of mental anguish “somewhat unwieldy.” Parkway, 901 S.W.2d at 444.

The Texas Supreme Court started its discussion of mental anguish in Parkway by declaring its narrow focus on the evidentiary standard to prove mental anguish, but the Court went on to articulate what it perceived as a number of problems in Texas law regarding mental anguish damages as it existed at the time. This laundry list of what the Court perceived as problems with Texas law at that time on the issue of mental anguish also served to explain the Court’s rationale for wanting to address the issue of mental anguish and establish what the Court believed was a more precise evidentiary standard.

What Type of Evidence Supports a Mental Anguish Claim Under Current Texas Law?

Having discussed the history of mental anguish damages in Texas law and what it viewed as the biggest problems relating to the issue, the Texas Supreme Court then shifted its discussion in Parkway  to describe the types of evidence which the Court considered legally sufficient to prove mental anguish damages:

“Under this admittedly nebulous definition and the traditional standard of review, it is nevertheless clear that an award of mental anguish damages will survive a legal sufficiency challenge when the plaintiffs have introduced direct evidence of the nature, duration, and severity of their mental anguish, thus establishing a substantial disruption in the plaintiffs’ daily routine. Such evidence, whether in the form of the claimants’ own testimony, that of third parties, or that of experts, is more likely to provide the fact finder with adequate details to assess mental anguish claims.” Parkway, 901 S.W.2d at 444.

The Texas Supreme Court went on to say that while this type of evidence is not mandatory, anytime mental anguish damages are awarded without this type of evidence being presented, that is a big red flag signifying to the appellate courts that they should be looking at the mental anguish damages extra closely to see if they are truly justified based on the evidence presented:

“Although we stop short of requiring this type of evidence in all cases in which mental anguish damages are sought, the absence of this type of evidence, particularly when it can be readily supplied or procured by the plaintiff, justifies close judicial scrutiny of other evidence offered on this element of damages.” Parkway, 901 S.W.2d at 444.

As discussed above, the Texas Supreme Court’s opinion in Parkway was a pivotal moment for mental anguish damages in Texas law, and the standard of proof for establishing mental anguish damages it articulated still applies today. Someone seeking to establish a claim for mental anguish under Texas law should be able to support that claim with direct evidence of:

• The nature of their mental anguish;
• The duration of their mental anguish;
• The severity of their mental anguish; and
• How their mental anguish caused a substantial disruption in their daily routine.

 

This evidence can be presented through testimony from the claimant, medical records, testimony from medical experts, testimony from people who know the claimant well and can discuss their firsthand observations of the claimant’s mental anguish, or some combination of these. There is not an exclusive list limiting the types of evidence which may be used to prove mental anguish, nor is it necessary to have every single type of evidence listed in every case. In fact, the Texas Supreme Court specifically stated that it was stopping short of making any specific type of evidence mandatory in order to support a claim for mental anguish damages. However, providing this type of evidentiary support for a mental anguish claim is generally the best and safest practice. Failing to provide this type of evidence to support a claim for mental anguish damages will most likely hinder the ability to obtain compensation for mental anguish damages at trial from a jury. Failing to provide this type of evidence in support of mental anguish damages also makes it more likely that any such damages that a jury awards at trial will be reversed on appeal.

Who Can Recover Mental Anguish Damages Under Current Texas Law?

Current Texas Law allows people to recover mental anguish damages in a number of situations which can generally be grouped into five categories which are discussed below.

1. People Who Have Suffered a Physical Injury Can Recover Mental Anguish Damages As Part of A Personal Injury Claim Under Texas Law.

Mental anguish damages are recoverable in nearly all personal injury cases. City of Tyler v. Likes, 962 SW 2d 489, 495 (Tex. 1997). Whether someone has been injured in a  car accident, truck accident, work accident, or any other situation where they are making a personal injury claim, they are entitled to seek compensation for mental anguish if they have suffered a physical injury. However, they must still provide evidence to support their mental anguish claim, and the mere fact that someone sustained physical injuries does not automatically entitle them to the award of mental anguish damages. Grant v. Cruz, 406 SW 3d 358, 364 (Dallas 2013, no pet.)

2. People Who Did Not Suffer a Physical Injury But Were Victims of Intentional or Malicious Conduct  Can Recover Mental Anguish Damages.
   
   Mental anguish damages can be recovered under Texas law by claimants who did not suffer a physical injury but were the victims of intentional or malicious conduct. City of Tyler v. Likes, 962 SW 2d 489, 495 (Tex. 1997). Some examples of this include someone who was a victim of assault not resulting in physical injury, someone who was a victim of defamation, someone who was a victim of the invasion of their privacy, or someone whose child was abducted.

3. Claimants Suing for the Intentional Violation of Certain Statutes are Entitled to Recover Mental Anguish Damages Under Texas Law.
   
   A claimant suing for the intentional or knowing violation of certain statutes, such as the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, can recover mental anguish damages.

5. A Claimant Suing for Breach of Duty Arising from a Special Relationship Recognized by Texas Law or a Special Contract May Recover Mental Anguish Damages.A claimant suing for the breach of a duty that arises from a special relationship recognized by Texas law or a special contract may be entitled to recover mental anguish damages. There is no legal test that Texas law currently recognizes as a bright-line rule to determine if there was a special relationship that allows for the recovery of mental anguish damages. Some instances where Texas law has previously recognized the right to recover mental anguish damages because of a special relationship include the relationship between a physician and their patient and the relationship between an insurance company and their insured. Examples of special contracts which may give rise to a claim for mental anguish damages under Texas law include contracts that deal with intensely emotional, non-commercial subjects, such as contracts relating to the handling of a corpse or a contract for the delivery of news about a family emergency.
6. Someone Who Has Experienced a Particularly Disturbing Event Can Recover Mental Anguish Damages Under Texas Law if the Event Was of A Shocking or Disturbing Nature.Texas law allows someone who was not physically injured but experienced a particularly disturbing event to recover mental anguish damages.One example of this is a claim for wrongful death. Texas law recognizes that the death of a family member is a traumatic and disturbing event, and recovery for mental anguish damages in wrongful death claims is meant to provide compensation for the emotional damage to the family unit and the surviving family members caused by the death of their loved one.  Because mental anguish damages in wrongful death claims are meant to compensate the surviving family members for the trauma of losing their loved one, the evidence presented to support mental anguish in wrongful death claims should focus primarily on the nature of the family relationship between the claimants and the deceased family member and the suffering caused by the loss of that relationship. Moore v Lillebo, 722 SW 2d 683, 686 (Tex. 1986).

A Bystander Who Was Not Injured But Witnessed Injury to a Close Relative Can Recover Mental Anguish Damages Under Texas Law

Another example where Texas law allows claimants who experienced a disturbing event without suffering physical injury to recover mental anguish damages are sometimes referred to as “bystander claims.” Texas law considers bystander claims, to be independent claims and not derivative of the injury claim brought by the injured individual. Hermann Hospital v. Martinez, 990 S.W.2d 476 (Tex. App.–Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, rev. denied). A plaintiff who witnessed injury to a third person but who suffered no physical injury herself can recover mental-anguish damages if the harm was reasonably foreseeable by the defendant. Freeman v. City of Pasadena, 744 S.W.2d 923, 923-24 (Tex 1988).

A bystander who suffers no physical injury can recover mental-anguish damages if they:

(1) were present at or near the scene of the accident,

(2) suffered shock as a result of a direct emotional impact from perceiving the accident as it happened or immediately afterward and

(3) were closely related to the victim.

United Servs. Auto. Ass’n v. Keith, 970 S.W.2d 540, 541-42 (Tex. 1998); Boyles v. Kerr, 855 S.W.2d 593, 598 (Tex. 1993)

Bystander claims are also subject to the injury victims’ negligence, and the bystander only has a right to make a claim for damages if the victim who suffered the injury is not at fault and similarly has the legal right to make a claim against the person or entity who caused the injury. American Industries Life Ins. Co. v. Ruvalcaba, 64 S.W.3d 126 (Tex. App.- Houston (14th Dist.) 2001, pet. denied);  Barrera v. Rosamond Village Ltd. Partnership, 983 S.W.2d 795, 799–800 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, no pet.)

What Should I Do if I’ve Been Injured and Need to Make a Personal Injury Claim Which Includes a Claim for Mental Anguish?

While it is important to understand the legal issues relating to your claim, no amount of internet research in the world is going to be a proper substitute for the professional expertise of an experienced and knowledgeable attorney. For that reason, this article is meant for informational purposes only, and nothing presented in this article constitutes legal advice in relation to any specific situation. Likewise, nothing in this article is meant to create any attorney-client relationship, so if you choose to act upon any information presented in this article without consulting with a qualified attorney, please understand that you are doing so at your own risk.

Texas personal injury law is complicated. If you’ve been injured due to someone else’s fault, it’s important to have the right attorneys by your side to help you navigate the complexities of the Texas legal system and work to obtain justice and receive full and fair compensation for your damages.

Our experienced personal injury lawyers at The Kishinevsky Law Firm have helped injured clients in the greater Houston area and throughout the State of Texas to successfully obtain full and fair compensation for their damages. If you’ve been injured in a a  car accident, truck accident, work accident,, or any other situation where someone else caused your injury, contact our office today to schedule a free consultation to discuss your situation and find out how we may be able to help you with obtaining the fair and full compensation you are owed for your claim.