### TEXA S COU RT O F AP PEAL S, THIR D DISTRIC T, AT AU STIN

44444444444

4444 NO. 03-01-00044-CV

44444444444

4444 Linda Long , Appellant

v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Appell ee

44444444444

44444444444

44444444444

44444444444

44444444444

4444444444 FROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF BURNET COUNTY, 33RD JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. 19,559, HONORABLE GUILFORD L. JONES , III, JUDGE PRESIDING

44444444444

44444444444

44444444444

44444444444

44444444444

4444444444 Appe llantLi

nda Long appe al s f

rom a take nothin

g judgm ent in fav or o f appel

le e Wa l -Mart Stores , Inc . (“W

al -Mart”)
. Long sued W

al -Mart for injuries

sustain ed when she s li pped and fel l at a Wal-Mart sto re in Marbl e Falls, Tex as. Th

e j ury f ail ed to f i nd W al -Mart negligent . Lo ng contends that the trial

court wrongly

excl uded evi dence o f an ea r lier slip an d fa ll incid en t in t he sa me sto re . W e w i l l

af f i rm th e j udgm

en t of th e tr i al cou rt. Backgr ound On Octobe r 11, 19 98, Lon

g an d he r gra ndson, Ro be

rt, brows ed

i n W al-M art' s toy dep ar t ment f

or approxi

matel y f orty m i nute s. Th ey

sto pp ed to exam i ne a p arti cu l ar toy l oca ted on a t op shelf. Lo ng wa s st ill loo king at t he t oy as she p re par ed t o lea ve t he t oy aisle. As she pushed her cart forward, she sl

i pped and f el l on a l oose cra y on, i nj uri ng h er lef t kne e. Si

nc e h er i nj ury2

occurred, Lo ng ha s u

nd erg one a vari ety of trea tmen ts f orher knee , in

cl udin g surgery a

nd phy si cal t he r ap y. In

Augu st 199 9, Lo ng su ed Wa l-Mar t unde r a pr emises liabili t y theo ry, s eek ing dam ages fo rpa st an d fu t ur e p hysic al p ain and m en tal angui sh , pas t and

f uture ph y si ca l i m pai rm en t, pa st an d fu t ur e me dic al e xp en se s, an d lo st wa ge s. At t r ial, Lon g a ttem pte d to pres en

t ev i de nc e of Wal-Mart’s b re ac h

of i ts duty to exer cise o rd inary car e and op er at e its st or e r eas ona bly and pr ud en t ly. Th e j ur

y f ai l ed to fi nd Wal -Mart negli

gent. Long fi

le d a m ot ion f or new trial

and a moti on f orjudgm ent notwithstandi

ng the verdict, nei

ther of whi

ch was gran

ted by the tria lcourt. I n one is sue on appeal , Long compl ai ns that the trial

court erred in

excl udin g certain e

vi dence. Standard of Review In order to reverse a tria

l cour t’s judgmen

t based on exclusi

on of eviden

ce, we must fi rst find that the tria l court com

m i tted error. Geev. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. , 765 S.W.2d 394, 396 (Tex . 1989) . If

err orwa s c om

m i tted , w e m

us t th en f i n d th e error wa s rea son

ab l y ca l cul ate d to
ca us e a nd pr o ba bly d id

cause th e r en

di ti on of an i m pr ope r j udgm en t. Id. ; Tex . R. A

pp. P. 44 .1(a); Te x. R. Evi d. 103(a) (ex

cl us i on m us t af f ec t pa rty 's su bs tan ti al righ t). Th e a dm i ss i on or excl us i on of evi dence re st s wit hin the s ou nd disc re t ion o f the trial cou rt. New Braunfels Factory Outlet v. IHOP Realty Corp. , 8 72 S .W. 2d 3 03, 310 (T ex. App. –—Au st in 199 4, no writ). In determi ni ng whether
err orwas comm

itted, we revi ew the trial

court ’s excl

usi on of evi

dence un der an ab us e of di screti on standard. McEwen v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. , 975 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. App.—San A ntonio 1998, pe t. deni ed). Under

t his s t an da r d, t he co ur t co mmit s e r r o ro nly wh en it ac t s in an unr eas ona ble and arb i trary ma nne r or without re fere nce t o a ny guidi ng princi ples. Beaumont Bank, N.A. v. Buller , 8063

S.W.2d 223, 226 (Tex. 1991). Even i f error was comm itted , t he ex clu sio n o f ev ide nc e o r din ar ily does not co nstitute r eversib le error unless t he co mplaining par t y can de monst ra t e t he o ut co me of t he
case turns on the ex cl uded evi den ce. Porter v. Ne

mir, 90 0 S
. W. 2d 37 6, 38 1 ( T ex . Ap p. —A us t in 1995, w ri t deni ed). Discussion Bef ore we address Long’s issue on the m erits, we m

ust ensure that error was pr o pe r ly preserved. In order to preserve error for appel la te review , t he r eco rd must sho w t hat t he co mplaint
was ma de to t he trial

court by a tim el y reques t, o bj ect io n, o r mo t ion st at ing t he gr ou nds fo r t he desi red ruli ng with su ffi

cient spe cificity to make t he t rial co ur t awa re of t he co mplaint, unless t he sp ec ific ground was

appa ren t from the c ontex

t. SeeTex. R. App. P. 33.1(a). If the ruli ng excl udes t he ev i den ce , the s

ub sta n ce of th e ev i den ce

m us t h av e b een made k n own to the cou rt b y of f er, orbe app ar ent f rom th e con text. See Tex. R. Evid. 103(a). An appel la te contention that does not com port with the obj ection v

oiced at tria l pres en ts noth i ng f or revi ew. See Lakeway Land Co. v. Kizer, 796 S.W.2 d 820, 8 25 (Tex . App.—A usti n 19 90, wri

t deni ed). At t rial, L ong ti

mel y obj ec ted to the cou rt’ s e xc l us i on of tes ti mony reg ard i ng a p ri or acc ident that t oo k plac e o ut side t he t oy aisle in t he Marbl e Fal ls Wal -Mart. She argued that eviden ce of pr ior slip and fal

l i ncidents should be adm

itted in order t o refut e test im ony that Wal-Mart was a
sa fe store. On

ap pe al, however, Long takes a dif f eren t approach i

n a ttemptin g to persuade th

i s Court of the evi dence’ s rel evan

ce. Lo ng now ar gue s t he evidenc e r ega rd ing pr ior acc ident s sho uld have been adm itted because the

pri orac cid en t in q ue st io n w as simila ro rr ea so na bly si m i l ar to h er ow n f al l . The te st f

or1 In f act, the record shows t hat Lo ng’s at t o r ne y we nt so far as t o sa y t he pr io rac cid en t in qu es t io n is n o t t he sa me o rsimila ran d is no t r ela t ed t o ap pe llant ’s fall: Wa l -Mart: [I] t can

not be shown that those

prev i ous ac ciden

ts . . . ar e t he sa me o rsimila rt o t he o cc ur r en ce we 'r e t alk ing ab o ut t o da y. Long : It's

not the s am

e or si m i l ar, Ju dge. . . .
2 In sp i te of t he fact t hat t he t ext o f Henry fai ls to in dic ate whether a pri or inci dent mus t meet all threepre dica

tesor s i m pl y on e o f the three, at l east one court has read the test as ha vi ng a disjunct ivena

ture. Comp are

Henr y v. Mr s. Bair d's Ba ker ies, I nc., 475 S. W.2 d 28 8, 295 (T ex. Civ. App.—F ort Wo r t h 1 97 1, wr it ref’ d n.r.e.) (faili ng to indi cate whether

i ts f ac tors a re c onjun cti ve or di sj unc tiv e), with McEwen, 975 S. W.2 d at 29 ( hold ing t he “s i m i l ar ev en ts” f actors a re di sj unc tiv e). For our pur poses, it m ake s n o di f f eren ce wh ethe r the m i ssi ng c onj unc

tion shoul d be

‘an d’ or ‘ or’ because Long’s evi

dence meets none of the three facto rs. 4 ad m i ss i b i l i ty of su ch evide nce is enu merat ed in Henry v. Mrs. Baird’s Bakeries, Inc. and h as been used to de mon strate the prob ati ve va l ueof ne ar a cc i de nts orrelated si

mi la r events. 475 S.W.2d 288, 294 (Tex. Ci v. App .—Fort Worth 1971, writ ref’d n .r.e.). In spi te of any me rit Long’s

si mi la r con di ti on s t he o r y may ha ve , she faile d t o as se r t t he se gr o un ds at t r ial. 1 Because Lo ng’s t r ia l
ar gument fai

ls to ma tch her appella te contention, we hold that error was not properly

preserved, and, as such , we have

nothin g to review. Hend

ers on, 617 S.W.2d at 699. Even if Long properly

preserved error for appeal , she f ai le d t o p ro ve th e a

pp l i ca b i l i ty of the Henry tes t to the

f ac ts of this case. Under the Henry t est , similar eve nt s ar e ad missibl e if the earli er acci dent occurred under reas o nabl y si mi lar but not necessarily

iden tical ci rcumstances. McEwenv. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. , 975 S.W.2 d 25, 29(Tex . App.—San An toni o 1998, pe

t. deni ed). In o rd er t o ad mit e vide nce o f similar eve nt s, a p laint iff m us t f i rs t es tab l i sh

a p red i ca te of si m i l ar or r ea so na bly

simila rco nd it io ns, a c o nne ct io n o f t he co nd it io ns in so me special wa y , or th at th e i n ci den ts occurred by

mea ns of the s am e i ns trumen tal i ty. McEwen , 975 S.W.2d at 29; Henry, 475 S.W.2d at 294. Lo ng’s evi

dence meets none of the required predicates. 25 In Henry , t he appella

nt slippe d and f

el l on a rain y da y i n a “ greasy , bl ack” subs

tance located on t he side walk be low a do wn sp ou t co nne ct ed t o ap pe llee ’s ca ke fa ct o r y. Henry, 475S.W.2d

at 289. She was allowed to introduce evi dence of a si mi la r sli p and f al l wh ic h occurred be lo w the same down spout under sim il ar rainy conditions. Id. at 2 91 . L i kewi se , the a

pp el l an t i n McEwenwas st ru ck in t he bac k o f the legs by a floo r mat at t he f ront en tranc e to a Wa

l -Mart store, cau sing her to trip a

nd f al l f orward. McEwen, 975 S.W.2d at 29. She was perm itted to in tro duce
an acc i den t report whi

ch stated that another wo ma n ha d t ripp ed o ver a fo lded flo or mat a t t he fro nt en tra n ce of th e s am e W al -M ar t. Id. In the case at ha

nd, Long sl

ippe d on a cray

on in the toy ai sl e, while the earli

er proffered i

nci dent in volv ed a sham poo spill a

t an un dis cl osed location i

n the store. The f ac t th at bot h falls occ ur re d o n Wal-Ma rt ’s pr emises is no t eno ugh t o mak e t he o ccu rr enc e s simi lar o r r eas ona bly si

mil ar , a nd cont rary t o ap pellan

t’s ar gument , g ener al st or e po licies affor d no special connecti on between the two inc ide nt s. Ad dit io na lly, t he fac t t ha t mat er ials i n p oss es si on of th e store al leg ed ly ca us ed bo t h fa lls d o es no t es t ab lish o cc ur r en ce s by me an s o f t he sa me i nstru me n t alit y. A crayon an d sham poo are tw o entirely

dif ferent prod ucts and substances. Ac co r di ng ly, Lo ng d id no t sa t isfy t he pr edica t es fo r a dmission o f prio r incide nt s und er t he Henrytest. A s s uc h , w e w oul

d n ot s us tai n Lon g’ s iss ue ev en i f sh e h ad pr es er v ed i t. Furtherm ore, even i

f preserved and Long m et t he predicates for admi ss i on, t he evi dence wo uld onl

y be prob ati ve asto (1) the

ex i stenc e of a d an ge rous con di ti on o rins t rum en t alit y, (2) t he fac t t ha t so me s im ilar ev en t co uld have ha ppe ned, or (3 ) t he qu est ion o f not ice t o t he def endan t of the ex i sten ce of an al l eged dan gerous cond i tion
. Henry, 475 S. W.2d at 294 ; see also Klorer v. Block, 717 S.W.2d 754, 760 (Tex. App.—San A ntonio 1986, writ ref’ d). Long argues that6

evi dence of th i s p rior s l i

p a n d f al l i n ci den t goe s to the el em

ent of notice, b

ut we do not bel

ie ve that t he st o re ’s n o t ice o f sha mpo o in o ne a isle c o nst it ut es no t ice o f a cra y on i n a nothe r area of the store
m ore than a wee k l ater. The ev

i den ce, th eref ore, does n

ot go to prove

a m aterial i ssue. In sum , even if t he pr o pe rpr ed ica t e h ad be en laid an d t he co ur t ha d e r r ed in not admit t ingt he evide nce in qu est ion, such erro r wou ld n

ot require reversal because i t wa s n ot rea son ab l y cal cu l ate d to c au se

the ren di ti on of an impro per judgment . T ex. R. App. P. 44. 1; Gee , 765 S.W.2d at 396. T heref ore, we o ve r rule Long’s issue. Conclusion

Because appel

la nt’s argum

ent on appeal

dif fers f rom her com

pla in t at t r ial, we ho ld that she ha s w aiv ed he rpo int o n a pp ea l. Fur t her , e ven if pre ser ved, app ellant ha s no t sho wn t hat t he trial co ur t abus ed it s discr et ion by exclud ingt he evi dence i n questi on. For all

the reasons stated, we af f i rm th e tr i al cou rt’ s j udgm

en t.

Mari ly

n A boussie, Chief J

ustice Be f ore C hi ef Ju sti ceA bou ss i e, J us ti ce s Y ea

ke l an d Pa tters on Af fi rmed File d: Novem

ber 1, 2001 Do No t Publis

h7