Appel l ant , Fr ances T

. M oor e, al l eged she su ff er ed i nj uri es w he n she t r i pped and f el l on unev en 1 p a v e m e n t a t T i d w e l l ’ s c o n v e n i e n c e s to re
. T h ro u g h o u t t h i s o p i n i o n , w e re fe r to F ra n c e s T . M o o re a s “M o o re .” 

### NUM BER 13-06- 473- CV 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS C OR P U S C H R I S T I - E D I N B U R G
FRA NCES T. M OORE A ND A A RON M OOR E, A pp ellan ts,
v . M I C H AE L K
. T I D W E L L D / B /A EXXON F OOD M A RT , A pp ellee.
On ap pe al f rom th e 1 07t h Dist rict C ou rt o f C amero n Co un ty , T exas .



## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON B efo re J u st ic es Y añ ez , R o d rig u ez , a n d G arza M emo rand um Opin ion b y Ju stice Ya ñe z In t his sl ip- and- fall cas e, a jur y found in fav or

of the d efendant/appe ll ee, M ic hael K. Tidw ell d/b/a Exx on Food Mar t (“ Tidw ell ”)

. In tw o iss ues, appel lan ts Frances T. M oor e and Aaron Moore conte nd th e trial court: (1) fa iled to en force its o wn pre-trial order, w hich 1G o n za l e z’ s te s ti m o n y a t tri a l e s ta b l i s h e d th a t t h e u n e v e n p a v e m e n t m e a s u re d b e tw e e n o n e -f o u rth 2 o f a n i n c h a n d s e v e n -e i g h th s o f a n i n c h

.

T h e H o n o r a b le B e n j a m in E u r e s t i , p r e s id in g ju d g e o fth e 1 0 7 th D is tr ic t C o u r t in C a m e r o n C o u n ty, 3 T e x a s , p re s i d e d o v e r th e tri a l

. T h e H o n o ra b l e J o a q u i n V i l l a rr e a l , vi s i ti n g ju d g e , ru l e d o n M o o re ’ s m o ti o n to e x c lu d e G o n z a le z ’s te s tim o n y.

See gen er

al l y E. I

. du Pont

de N em our

s & C o. , I nc. v. R obi

nson , 92 3 S

. W

. 2d 54 9 (T ex
. 19 95 ). 4 2 proh ibited T idw ell’s expert, Edm und o R. Gon z alez, Jr., f rom testif y ing as to a specif ic
ma tter; an d (2) abuse d its discretion byperm itting Gonzalezto testif y a s an expert w itness. W e affi r m. Back ground Mo or e al leg ed th at w hil e purchas ing g as at Tidw ell ’s conv eni ence st or e, she tr ipp ed and fell on u nev en co n cre te pav ement ne ar the g as pumps. M oor e s ued Ti dw ell for 2 pr em i s es l i ab i l i ty , al l eg i ng t ha t th e un ev en p av em en t pres en te d an u nrea sona bly dan gerous cond ition. At a p re-trial hearing, v isiting Judge Joa quin Vill a rr e a l hea rd 3
arg uments on M oor e’s moti on to ex cl ude G onz ale z ’s tes ti mony as Tidw ell’s ex per

t on groun ds tha t Gon z alez w as no t qualif ied as an ex pert, a n d h is t e s t imo ny w as the refore
unr eli abl e and present ed a r is k o f misl eadi ng and confusi ng the jur y
. Judg e Vi ll ar re al ru led that Gonz ale zw as prohi bit ed from t est ify ing as to w hether the pr emis es “p re sent ed an
unre ason ably dangerous co nditio n,” butcould te stif y as to all othe r relevant m atte rs. At t ri al, M oor e’s co unsel re- urg ed a “ Rob ins on c h a ll e n ge ” t o G o n za le z’s t e s t im o n y. 4 The tr ial j udg e s tated thathe w oul d “c ar ry the pr ev iou s o rd ers o f the C our t reg ardin g the moti on.” After

a br ief arg ument fro m M oor e’s co unsel , t he c our t den ied the moti on. By her f irst is sue, M oor e c ontends thatby per mitt ing Gonz ale zto tes ti fy as an
ex per t, the t ri al cour

t v iol ated it s earl ier

order

. By

her secon d i ss ue, s he c ontends thattheBroder s v. H eise , 9 2 4 S .W .2 d 1 4 8 , 1 5 1 (T e x . 1 9 9 6 ). 5 B o w i e M e m 'l

H o s p . v . W rig h t, 7 9 S .W .3 d 4 8 , 5 2 (T e x . 2 0 0 2 ); B rod ers , 924 S. W

. 2d a t 151

. 6 D ow ner

v. Aquam ar

ine O per

at or s, I nc. , 70 1 S

. W

. 2d 23 8, 24 2 (T ex
. 19 85 ). 7 T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 4 4 .1 (a )( 1 ); Bay Area Heal t hcare G roup, Lt d. v. McS hane , 239 S. W

. 3d 2 31, 234 ( T ex. 8 2 0 0 7 ); N issan Mot or

C o. v. Ar

m st rong , 1 4 5 S .W .3 d 1 3 1 , 1 4 4 (T e x . 2 0 0 4 ). M cShane , 2 3 9 S .W .3 d a t 2 3 4 ; N issan , 1 4 5 S .W .3 d a t 1 4 4

. 9 N issan , 1 4 5 S .W .3 d a t 1 4 4 (c i ta ti o n s o m i tte d ). 10 3 t ri a l c o u rta b u s e d it s d is c re t io n in p e rm it t in g G o n za le z’s t e s t im o n y.

S t a n d a r d o f

R e v i e w a n d A p p l i c a b l e L a w A tr ial co urt' s r uli ng on a n ex per t' s qu a lific ati ons is rev iew ed unde r an abus e of dis creti on s tandard. “ A tr ial c our t abu ses i ts dis creti on i f it act s i n an ar bit ra ry or 5
unr eason abl e manner w it hout refer ence to any gui din g rul es or pr inc ipl es. ” An app ell ate 6
cour t may not re v erse for abus e of di sc re ti o n s impl y bec ause itw oul d hav e dec ide d the
m a t t e r d if

fe re n t ly. 7 Even if a trial court errs by improp erly

adm itting ev iden ce, reversal is w arrante d on ly if the error prob ably caused the ren dition of an imp rope r judgm ent

. To make this 8 deter minat ion , w e rev iew the enti re record and re q uire t h e c o mplai nin g par ty to de mo ns trat e th att he j ud g me ntt ur ns o n th e pa r ti c ul ar e v i de nc e ad mi tt ed

. As t he s up r em e 9
cour t has ex pla ine d: Cl ear ly , er ro neous admi ss ion i s h ar mles s if i t is mer ely

cu mulat iv e. B ut beyo n d that, w hether

er ro neous admi ss ion i s h ar mf ul is mor e a mat ter of ju d gm e n tt h a n p re c is e m e a s u re m e n t

. I n m a k in g t h a tju d gm e n t , we h a ve someti mes l ooked to the e fforts m ade by co unsel to emphasi z e the er ro n e o u s e v i d e n c e a n d w h e t h e r t h e r e w a s c o n t r a r y e v i d e n c e t h a t t he improper ly

admi tted ev ide nce w as cal cul ated to ov er come. 10 Fur th e rmore, an e rror

i n admi ss ion i s d eemed har mles s i f the obj ect ing par tySt at e O f f i ce of R isk Mgm t

. v. All en , 2 4 7 S .W .3 d 7 9 7 , 7 9 9 (T e x . A p p .– D a l l a s 2 0 0 8 , n o p e t.). 11 R obi nson , 9 2 3 S .W .2 d a t 5 5 3

. 12 G am m i

ll v. Jack W i

lliam s C hevr

ol et, I nc. , 9 7 2 S .W .2 d 7 1 3 , 7 2 2 (T e x . 1 9 9 8 ). 13 I n answer i ng Q uest i on No. 1, t he j ur y f ound T i dwel l was no t neg l i gent , and t hat M oor e was 14 n e g l i g e n t. See McS hane , 2 3 9 S .W .3 d a t 2 3 4 ; N issan , 1 4 5 S .W .3 d a t 1 4 4

.

15 4 per mits the same o r si mil ar ev ide nce to be i ntroduce d w it hout obj ect ion

. 11

A nal ysis H e r e , M o o r e c o n t e n d s t h e t r i a l c o u rtre v e rs i b l y er r e d i n p e r mi t t i n g G o n z a l e zt o t e s t i fy that h e d i d n o tc o n s i d e r t h e u n e v e n p a v e me n ta h a z a rd

. H o w e v e r , e v e n i f w e a s s u me,
w ithou t de c id ing, that th e trial court ab used its discretion in pe rmitting Gon z alez’s t e s t im o n y, Mo ore h a s n o td e m o n s t ra t e d t h a tt h e ju d gm e n tt u rn e d o n G o n za le z’s t e s t im o n y. T h e on ly dis cu ss io n of

th e h a rm iss u e ap p e a rs in Moo re ’s re p ly bri e f . Cit in g Rob ins on 12 and Gamm ill v. Jack W illiam s Chevrolet, Inc. , Moore as ser ts that Gonz ale z ’s tes ti mony 13
w as not merely

cu mulat iv e, bu t “ w as cont ro ll ing on a dispos it iv e iss ue[,] namely Ques ti on No. 1 of the Charg e of

the Cou rt .” M oor e s tates , “ Mr . G onz ale zw as the o nly ex per t w ho 14 tes ti fied on that is sue [Ques ti on N o. 1, the neg li g ence of ea ch par ty]. Con seq uentl y , t he admis si on of M r. Gonz ale z ’s tes ti mony ca used the rendi ti on of an i mprop er j udg ment.” W e f irst not e tha t the record of the ent ire trial is not bef ore us. T h e t ri a l r ecord before u s b eg ins w it h the tes ti mony of Tidw ell ’s w it ness es; it i ncl udes the t est imony of (1 ) El iz abeth Me

ji a, an empl oy ee of the conv eni ence sto re , ( 2) Gonz ale z , and ( 3) Tidw ell

. It doe s not includ e the testim ony of any w itnesse s presen ted byMoore. W e are thus una ble to review t he ent ire record. W e are also una ble to dete rmine “w het her the re w as con trary 15N issan , 1 4 5 S .W .3 d a t 1 4 4

. 16 5 ev ide nce that the i mprop er ly admi tted ev ide nce w as cal cul ated to ov er come.” 16 W e als o n o te t hat o n di re ct ex aminat ion by the defense, Gonz ale zdec li ned t o
e x p r e s s l y

s t a t e h i s o p i n i o n a s t o w h e t h e r t h e u n e v e n pav ement pr e s e n t e d a n u n s a fe condi ti on: Q [ by T idw ell ’s counsel ]: W hat o pin ion s d o y ou hav e i n rela ti on to w hether or not the p re mis es w er e s afe in conne cti on w it h y our i nspec ti on? [M oor e’s co unsel ]: Y our H onor , I object

. I’ m maki ng the same a rg ument as to t his g entl eman i s n ot q ual ified to g iv e any opi nio ns about w hether the condi ti ons w er e s afe or not s afe. [C our t]: I t’ ll be o v er ru led

. A [Gon z alez]: Basically w hatI saw

there is fairly

comm on in an area l ike ours.

. . . . Q [ Tidw ell ’s co unsel ]: H ow —after y our i nspec ti on, w hat i s your o pin ion as to w het her or notthis presen ted a ty pical ha z ard to a custom er? [M oor e’s co unsel ]: Y our H onor , s ame obj ect ion

. [C our t]: I t’ ll be o v er ru led

. A: W ell , l ik e I jus t s tated , es peci all y for concre te s lab s, it ’s a c ommon occ ur re nce. On c ro ss -e x aminat ion , M oor e’s co unsel as ked Gonz ale z direct ly about his opi nio n regarding w het her the area w as no t hazardou s: Q [Moore’s cou n s e l] : And when y ou m et an d talke d w ith [T idw ell’s attor ney s], di d y ou g iv e the m the opi nio n tha t y ou th oug ht that thi s a re a w as nothazardous? A [G onz ale z ]: That i s c or re ct.See McS hane , 2 3 9 S .W .3 d a t 2 3 4 ; N issan , 1 4 5 S .W .3 d a t 1 4 4

. 17 6 W e al so note that the record i ncludes numerous photog ra phs of the unev en pav ement, w hic h the j ur y w as abl e to cons ide r in maki ng i ts deter minat ion

.

Conclusion Ass uming , w it hout deci din g , t hat t he tr ial c o u rt a b used it s d is creti on i n admi tti ng Gonz ale z ’s tes ti mony , w e c oncl ude t hat M oor e has fail ed to demons trate that the j udg ment t u rn e d o n G o n za le z’s t e s t im o n y. W e overrule both of Moore’s issues. 17 W e aff ir m the tr ial co urt’ s j udg ment.

LINDA REYNA Y AÑEZ, J u s t i c e

Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv er ed and filed thi s t he 22nd day

of Janua ry , 200 9.