Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): the view before and after the trees were cut down after the accident. They could easily be compared to other photographs depicting the trees present at the intersection the night Haley approached the intersection. Any error in the admission of testimony is rendered harmless if the objecting party subsequently permits the same or similar evi dence to be introduced without objection. Gee v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 765 S.W.2d 394, 896 (Tex.1989); Dalworth Trucking Co. v. Bulen, 924 S.W.2d 728 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1996, no pet.). Thus, the error in admitting other evidence of the subsequent remedial measures was rendered harmless. We overrule this contention of error. We affirm the judgment. 1 . But see Sipes v. City of Grapevine, 146 S.W.3d 273, 285 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2004, no pet.) (<HOLDING>). 2 . See Jezek v. City of Midland, 605 S.W.2d 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the district court did not have jurisdiction and remanding the matter to state court (B) holding that a conclusion that reasonable suspicion supported the stop of a vehicle was subsumed within the trial courts ruling that the officer had probable cause for the stop (C) holding that the district courts order refusing to exercise jurisdiction and remanding to the magistrate court for trial was sufficiently final for purposes of appeal and then determining that the remand was in error (D) holding that superior court erred in reversing trial courts order granting new trial and remanding for a new trial limited to apportionment of damages (E) holding there was some evidence that city had negligently implemented discretionary act involving stop light and remanding for trial
Output (English): holding that the district courts order refusing to exercise jurisdiction and remanding to the magistrate court for trial was sufficiently final for purposes of appeal and then determining that the remand was in error