### NUM BER 13-09- 0043 4-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 CORPUS CHRI ST I - 

## E D I N B U R G
D U AN E M U H S , I N D I V I D U AL L YAN D AS NEXT FR IEND OF ASHT ON M UH S, A M INOR , A pp ellan t,
v. WH A TA BU RGE R, INC ., RO BERT GON ZA LE Z GA RZA , A ND M ICH A EL L EE METT LE N, A pp ellees .

On ap pe al f rom th e 3 57t 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 C h ie f Ju st ic e Va ld eza n d J u st ic es R o d rig u eza n d V el a M emo rand um Opin ion b y C hie f J us tice Vald ez Appel lan t, Dua ne M uhs (“ Mu hs” ), i ndi v idu all y and as next of fri end of As hton Mu hs (“Ashton ”), a minor, ap pea ls from the trial court’s judgm entthathe take noth ing on his claim for person al injuries susta ined by Asht on in an auto -ped estrian acciden t. Th e juryA s th is is a m e m o r a n d u m o p in io n , a n d t h e p a r tie s a r e f a m ilia r w ith t h e f a c ts o ft h e c a s e , w e w ill o n ly 1 r eci t e t hose f act s w hi ch ar e necessar y t o adv i se t he p ar t i es of t hi s C our t ’ s deci si on a nd t he b asi c r easons f or i t. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47. 1, 47. 4.

T r i al t est i m onyr ev eal ed t hat H i ghway 100 i s com pr i sed o ft wo east bo un d l anes, t wo west bound 2 l anes, a cent erl ane, and t wo i m pr ov ed sh oul der s. 2 found that appel lee s, W hataburg er , I nc. , R ober t G onz ale z Gar

z a, an d M ic hael Lee Me ttl en
w ere ne gli gent, bu t it also foun d tha t Ashto n w as ne gli gent. T he jury foun d Mettlen g rossly neg li g ent and aw arded Mu hs $25,000 in puni ti v e damag es. The ju ry ap p orti oned neg li g ence and as si g ned 37% to W hataburg er and Gar z a c ombine d, 3% to Me ttl en, a nd 60% to Asht on. Bec ause Ash ton’ s neg li g ence ex ceede d 50% , t he tr ial co urt rendered a ta ke -n o th in g jud gm e n t in ap p e lle e s’ fa vor. See T EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN . § 33.001 (Verno n 20 08). Muhs app eals, a rg uing bysev en issue s thatthe trial court erron eou sly
ex cl uded k ey

ev ide nce dur ing the tr ial and re fused to inc lud e per ti nent ins tr uct ion s a nd a q ue s ti on i n th e j ur

y c ha rg e. W e affi r m.

I. B A CKGRO UND 1 On O cto ber

31, 2005, fourteen -y ear-o ld Asht on i nju re d her r ig ht l eg i n an autopedes tr ian ac ci dent in Lag una H eig hts , Tex as, as sh e att empted to cro ss Hig hw ay 100 on foot. As hton tes ti fied th at s he w ent t o her fri end’ s house on the ev eni ng of O cto ber 31, 2 to m eeta group of

f riends to go trick- or-treatin g. W hen her f riend’s m oth er failed to pick up th e group to ta ke the m trick-or-treating, Asht on a nd four oth er mino rs decided to cross Hig hway 100 t o go to h er f riend’s grand mo the r’s ho use and a sk for a ride to Port Isa bel, Tex as. As hton sta ted that traff ic w as heavy on Hi g hw ay 100, and becau se there w as no designat ed crossw alk, she and a f riend w aited a t the curb for the e astb oun d traf f ic to clear. The g ir ls then proce eded across the tw o eastbound lanes and w ait ed in the center l ane for
w est bound t ra ff icto cl ear . Asht on testi fied that af ter approx imat ely

fiv e mi nutes , M ettl en,3

w ho w as dr iv ing a w hit e Ford F- 150 pic kup tr uck , sto pped in the w est bound ins ide lan e and moti oned for

As hton to c ro ss i n frontof his tr uck

. Asht on s ta te d t h a t she re membered taking “a coup le of step s” and the n “[w]aking up on the street.” Ashto n stat ed th at she did not walk far e noug h to g et t o the outs ide w est bound lane. Ashton su ffered an inj ur y to her ri g ht k nee t hat req uired s urg er y and left a sc ar

from t he mi ddl e of her thi g h to her

kn ee. Me ttl en te sti fied th at he w ent fis hin g at South Padre Is lan d ( “t he Is lan d” ) on th e morni ng of Oct ober

31, 2005. W hil e the re , M ettl en cons umed approx imat ely one pi nt of
v od k a. H e l eftt he I s l an d s om et i me b etw ee n 6: 30 p .m . an d 7: 00 p .m . to ret ur n to h i s h om e in Har li ng en, Tex as. M ettl en s tated thathe k new he was int ox ic ated w hen he left t he Isl and, but h e di d notfeel t hat h e “ w as too i ntox icat e d t o d riv e.” M ettl en l eft the I sl and dr iv ing w est bound o n H ig hw ay 100. Me ttl en t e s t i fi e d t h a th e s a w c h i l d re n o u tt r i c k
- o r- t re a t i n g a n d t h a tt h e t ra ffi cw as “v ery h e a vy ” when he e ntered Por t I sabel

. Me ttl en w as dr iv ing i n the i nsi de l ane somew here near

Por t I sabel H ig h Sc hool w hen he noti ced Gar z a dr iv ing behi nd hi m in a Chevrolet pickup truck. M ettle n test if ied th at Ga rz a w as “driv ing a li ttle faste r” tha n he w as, so Me ttl en “ g ot ov er

i n the [out si de] l ane” and all ow ed Gar z a to pass him. M ettl en s tated that the s peed l imi t w as 35 miles -p er-h our and est imat ed th at G arz a w as dr iv ing at a rate of 40 mil es- per-h our . After Gar z a pas sed him , Me tt le n mov ed bac k o v er i nto t he i nsi de lan e behi nd Ga rz a. Me ttl en te sti fied th at a shor t t ime lat er , he saw a g ro up of peopl e on the s ide walkon t he s ouths ide of Hi g hw ay 100. M ettl en s tated “ there w as [si c] 12 or 13 peo ple, a nd Ash ton w as the o nly one t hatran out , and she ran right in fron t of Mr . Garza’s pic kup. ” M ettl en te sti fied that Asht on w as hit by the “front- end” of Gar z a’s tr uck

and that upon impact, Asht on “t ra v ele d a few feet in front of [ Gar z a’s ] pic kup tr uck .” Mett len4

tes ti fied th at up on s eei ng the acc ide nt, he pul led hi s t ru ck to t h e s ide of the road and beg an “ hel pin g to make s ure tha t [Asht on] d id not g et hi t by anot her v ehi cl e.” Gar z a tes ti fied th at he does not ag re e w it h M ettl en’ s a cc ount of the ac ci dent. Gar z a, a lea d tec hni ci an for W hataburg er , testi fied that on Oct ober 31, 2005, he trav ele d thro u gh L a gu n a Heights af ter leaving a rem ode ling job atthe Po rt Isabe l W hat abu rg er. Garza w as driv ing a w hite Che v rolet thre e-quarter ton pickup truck ow ned byW hat abu rg er. Gar z a tes ti fied th at he w as in the o uts ide w est bound l ane t ra v elin g a t approx imat ely 25 mil es- per-h our

w hen he entered Lag una H eig hts . Garz a notic ed Mett len ’s truc k ahead of him in the inside lane. Garz a test if ied, “all of a sudd en, [Mettlen ] stop ped a nd jerked his tr uck to myl ane. At that poi nt I broke lan e [s ic] w it h hi s t ru ck and there w as an i mpact, and I pul led ov er to the shoul der and I par ked. ” Al thoug h Gar z a or ig ina ll y bel ie ved th a t he might ha v e hit Mettle n’s truck, w hen he saw Asht on ly ing on t he groun d in f ront of Mettlen’s tr uck , he re ali z ed th at hi s t ru ck had col li ded w it h As hton. There w as no damag e to Me ttl en’ s tr uck

. Gar z a tes ti fied that his tr uck su sta ine d
s o me d a ma g e a n d t h a tre p a i rs a n d re p a i n t i n g we re d o n e t o t h e t r u c k ’ s fro n tl e ftfe n d e r , l e ft bum per, left f ront do or, and lef t side m irror. Garz a also sta ted thatthere was a horiz ont al, dar k red mar k a bout three q uar ters of an inc h w ide that extended alo ng the dr iv er ’s si de of Garz a’s tr uck

from bel ow the w ind shi eld to abov e the rear ti re . Gar

z a tes ti fied th at he noti ced a bac kpac k t hat Asht on had at t he ti me of the c oll is ion w as the s ame co lor as the
ma rk on the side of

his truck. Garz a op ined thatthe re d m a rkwa s c ause d by Ashton ’s back pack

and that Asht on “ ra n i nto [ his ] t ru ck .” Tex as Dep artment of Publi c Safety Trooper Cor y Pi nnel l inv est ig ated the O cto ber 3 1 co ll is io n . T ro o p e r P in n e ll t e s t if ie d t h a th e sp o k e t o G a rza a tt h e sc e n e a n d t h a tG a rza5

tol d hi m thathe w as trav eli ng in the ins ide w est bound lan e of Hi g hw ay 100 behi nd M ettl en
w hen M ettl en s topped or sl ow ed dow n. Gar

z a tol d Trooper Pi nnel l that he “ chang ed to the outs ide l ane t o g o around [ Me ttl en’ s] v ehi cl e, an d as he w as g oin g around it , he heard tha t he hi t s omethi ng . . . di dn’ t k now w hat i t w as, di dn’ t see anythi ng .” G arz a “ ass umed tha t he had st ru ck ” M ettl en’ s tr uck and par ked on the sh oul der

. Howev er , “ as [Gar z a] g ot ou t, he real iz ed th at he had str uck [As hton] .” Trooper

Pi nnel l als o tes ti f ie d a s to the w hat Me ttl en to ld him w hil e at the s cene of the ac ci dent. M ettl en to ld Pi nnel l that “h e obs er v ed some t ri ck -o r- treaters [w ho] were i n the cent er tur n lan e. [M ettl en] s topped and moti oned, y ou k now , t old them to g o ahead and cross i n frontof him. H e s topped his ve hic le to al low the m to cross, and that ’s w hen [Ashto n] got hit.” Trooper Pi nnel l noti ced damag e on Gar z a’s tr uck

“ [o]n the l eft front q uar ter panel up around t he frontheadl ig ht, tur n sig nal , in f ro nt of the ti re area.” Trooper

Pinnel l tes ti fied that he di d notnoti ce a red mar k a lon g the dr iv er ’s s id e o f G a rz a’s tr uck ; howev er , on cross -e x aminat ion , he admitted t hat i n an ear li er deposi ti on he had state d that he had s een a red mar k a lon g the si de of Gar z a’s tr uck. T ro oper

Pi nnel l sta ted t hat a red mar k o n G a rza ’s t ru c kc o u ld s u gge s tt h e p o s s ib il it y o f a s id e -s wip e a n d t h a tt h e m a rk“c o u ld h a ve bee n” ma de b y

M ettl en ’ s p as s en g er- s i de mi r ror a s G ar z a’ s t r uc kp as s ed b y . H owev er, Trooper Pi nnel l testi f ie d tha t t here w as “n o ev ide nce to s uppor t” the conc lus ion that Gar z a’s v ehi cl e mov ed i nto M ettl en’ s l ane and hi t M ettl en’ s tr uck

. Trooper Pinnel l opi ned that the a cc ide nt oc cur re d w hen A sh ton “t ook a s tep i nto t he out si de l ane or j og g ed i nto the o uts ide w est []bou nd l ane, and c oll ide d w it h [t he s ide of Gar z a’s tr uck].” The ju ry found eac h of the par

ti es neg li g ent, found Me ttl en g ro ss ly neg li g ent, and
aw arded As hton $25,000 i n puni ti v e damag es. Th e j u ry app orti oned respon si bil ity as6

follo w s: 60% to Asht on; 3 7% t o W hataburg er and Gar z a c ombine d; a n d 3 % to M ettl en. A ta ke- nothi ng j udg ment w as re ndered i n fav or of the a ppel lee s. See i d. This ap peal
ensue d. II. E VI D ENT I A R Y R UL I NGS By his f irst, f if

th, and sixth issu es, Muhs cont end s, respe ctiv ely, tha t the trial court
er re d by ex cl udin g: (1 ) his tes ti mony , di ag ra ms, photog ra phs and v ide o recordin g s t hat
re lat ed to the “t heoreti cal pos si bil ity ” that Gar z a’s tr uck

si desw ipe d M ettl en’ s v ehi cl e; ( 2) evidenc e o f

“M e t t le n ’s p ri o r re c e n tin c id e n to f p u b li cin t o xic a t io n a n d p o s s e s s io n o f V a li u m”; and (3) ev iden ce of

“M ettle n’s four s ubseq uent automobi le acc ide nts .” A . St and ard o f Rev iew The ex cl usi on of ev ide nce is a matter w it hin the “s ound” di sc re ti on of the tr ial co urt. See Tex. Dep’

t of T ransp . v. Able , 35 S.W .3d 6 08, 6 17 ( Tex . 200 0) ; City of Brow nsville v. Al var ado , 897 S.W .2d 7 50, 7 53 ( Tex. 1 995) ; Sta te Off ice of Risk Mgm t. v. Trujillo , 267 S.W .3d 349, 351 (Tex . App.–C or pus Chr is ti 2008, no pet.) . Thus, we rev iew the ex cl usi on of ev ide nce under an abuse of dis creti on s tandard. See In r e J.P.B

. , 180 S.W .3d 5 70, 5 75 (Tex . 200 5) ; Trujillo , 267 S.W .3d a t 351

. A tr ial cou rta buses i ts dis creti on i f it act s ar bit ra ri ly

or w it hout re ferenc e to g uid ing r ule s a nd pr inc ipl es. Wa l k e r v. Pac ker

, 827 S.W .2d 8 33, 8 40 ( Tex . 199 2) ; Trujillo , 267 S.W .3d a t 351

. For the ex cl usi on of ev ide nce to c onst it ute rev ersi ble er ro r, the complai n ing par ty
m u sts h ow

that( 1) the tr ial co urt c ommitt ed er ro r, and (2 ) the e rror probabl y

ca used the
re ndi ti on of an improper jud g ment. Sta te v. Cent. E xpressway Sign Assocs. , 302 S.W .3d 866, 870 ( Tex . 200 9 ). A succ ess ful c hal len g e to ev ide nti ar y r uli ng s u sual ly

req uires the compl ain ing par

ty to show that the j udg ment t ur ns on th e par ti cul ar ev ide nce ex cl uded orM uhs a ck nowl edged t hat M et t l en h ad so l d hi s F ord F- 150 t o a buy eri n M exi co; t hus, M uhs was 3 u n a b l e to i n s p e c t t h e s p e c i fic F o rd F -1 5 0 th a t M e ttl e n h a d b e e n d rivin g a t t h e ti m e o f th e a c c i d e n t. 7 admitted. Bay Ar

e a H e a lt hcar e Gr oup, Ltd. v. Mc Shane , 2 3 9 S

. W

. 3 d 2 3 1 , 2 3 4 (T e x. 2007) ; Ni

ss an Motor

C o. v . Ar m str ong , 145 S.W .3d 131 , 144 (Tex. 200 4). In ma king this deter minat ion , w e rev iew the enti re record. Reliance Ste el & Alumi num C o. v. Se vcik , 267 S.W .3d 8 67, 8 71 ( Tex . 200 8) ; Ni ss an Motor

C o. , 145 S.W .3d a t 144

. B. Exclu sio n of

M uh s’s T est imo ny

an d Rel at ed Ev id ence By his fi rs t i s s ue , M uh s c on te nd s t ha t “ [t]h e tr i al c ou rt er red i n ex c l ud i ng [ his] tes ti mony

and his di ag ra ms of the acc ide nt s cene, ” as w ell as “his photog ra phs and v ide o recording of

the picku ps[,] w hich sho w ed th at a side sw ipe prob ably occurred.” Al thoug h M uhs w as all ow ed to testi fy at tr ial , the tri al cour t refused to al low

hi m to prese ntt es ti mo ny

reg ardi ng t he p os s i bi l i ty t ha t Ga rz a’ s t r uc ks i de s w i pe d M ettl en ’ s truck b e fo re c oll idi ng w it h As hton. M uhs did not w it ness the Oct ober 31, 2005 ac ci dent; how ev er , i n a n o f

fe r of proo f outsi de th e presenc e of the jur y , M uhs tes ti fied th at after Trooper Pi nnel l’ s d eposi ti on w as tak en on Dec ember 3, 2008, he w ent t o the sc ene of the accide nt to research th e the oretica l possibilitythatGarz a’s v ehicl e s id e sw iped Mettlen’s
v ehicle a nd struck Ash ton in Mettlen ’s lane

. Muhs took me asure me nts an d ma de “to-sca le dia gra m s” of the sc ene. M uhs lat er l ocat ed Ga rz a’s tr uck and a F ord F -1 50 th at he desc ri bed as “ ide nti cal ” to t he F ord tha t M ettl en w as dr iv ing at the t ime o f the acc ide nt. 3 Mu hs took

phot og ra phs and meas urements of the v ehi cles . Muh s t est ified that , upo n inspe ction o f

Garz a ’s truck, he ob serv ed a repaired horiz ont al scratch alo ng the driv er’s si de of t h e truc k a s well as an “ impact c ra ck ” on th e out si de of the tr uck ’s dr iv er ’s si de mir ro r. U si ng Gar

z a’s tr uck

and the F -1 50 Mu h s d e emed “ ide nti cal ” to M ettl en’ s, Mu hs filmed a v ide o, w herein he a ttempt ed to “ re create the s treak” on Garza’s t ruckby tapi ng8

a dry e ra s e marke r to the “f urthe st-mo st poin t” on the F-150 an d driv ing Garz a’s truck alon gside it. M uhs te stif ied th at he w as ab le to m atch the m a rkmad e by the dry erase mark er to the h or iz ontal sc ra tch on G arz a’s tr uck by “ tur n[i ng ] le ft in to t he i nsi de l ane across th e f ro nt of the F ord [F -1 50] p ic kup. ” Bas ed on his obs er v ati ons and
measurements , M uhs tes ti fied th at t he s cratc h on Gar z a’s tr uck coul d hav e been c aused by Gar z a s ide sw ipi ng the pass eng er ’s si de mi rror of Me ttl en’ s F -1 50 tr uck

. In r uli ng thatthe abov e ev ide nce be ex cl uded, the t ri al cour t s tated : This q uit e c lea rl y

i s an ac ci dent re cons tr uct ion hy pothet ic all y al leg ing a si desw ipe , and for all of t he reason s t hat h av e been menti oned, and i n no par ti cul ar order , M r. M uhs is not an ex per t. T he h yp oth etical te sting w as do ne in Feb ruary of 200 9, an d in conj unct ion w it h the r ule s o f p ro ce d u re and ru les of ev ide nce that appl y to thi s c ase, hi s t est imony rele v ant t o the se is sue [si c] w il l not b e al lowed. Acc ide nt recons tr uct ion co nst it utes sc ien ti fic e v ide nce. See W aring v. W

om m ack , 945 S. W .2d 8 89, 8 92 ( Tex . Ap p.–Aus ti n 1997, no w ri t)

. Rul e 70 2 o f t he Tex as Rul es of Ev ide nce prov ide s that if sc ien ti fic know led g e “w il l ass is t the t ri er of fact to understa nd th e ev ide nce or

to deter mine a fact in is sue, a w it ness q ual ified as an e x per t by kn ow led g e, sk il l, ex per ien ce, train ing , or educ ati on may

tes ti fy thereto i n th e f o rm of an o pin ion or oth erw ise.” T EX
. R. E V ID
. 702. Thus, “Tex as has a lon g his tor y of al low in g qua lif ied
acc ide nt recons tr uct ion ex per ts to t est ify

reg ardin g the w ay

i n w hic h an acc ide nt oc cur re d.” Linco ln v. Clark Freight L ines, In c. , 285 S.W .3d 7 9, 83 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 st Di st. ] 200 9,
n o pe t. ) (ci ti n g Cha ver

s v . St ate , 991 S.W .2d 4 57, 4 60- 61 (Tex . App.–H oust on [1st Di st. ] 1999, pet. re f’d) ; W

aring v. W

om m ack , 945 S.W .2d 8 89, 8 93 (Tex . Ap p.–Aus ti n 1997, no
w ri t) ; Trailways, Inc. v. Clark , 794 S.W .2d 479 , 483 (Tex. App. –Corpu s Christi 199 0, w rit deni ed) ; DeL eon v

. Lou der , 743 S.W .2d 3 57, 3 59 ( Tex . Ap p.–Amar il lo 1987) , writ den ied9

per cu ri am , 754 S.W .2d 148 (Tex . 198 8) ; Bol sta d v. Egleson , 3 2 6 S

. W

. 2 d 5 0 6 , 5 1 9 (T e x. Ci v . Ap p.–H oust on 1959 , w ri t ref’d n. r. e.) ). W hataburg er

arg ues that Mu hs’ s t est imony and re lat ed ev ide nce cons ti tutes
acc ide nt recons tr uct ion ev ide nce and, becau se Mu hs w as not q ual ified as an ex per t, w as proper ly ex cl uded. M uhs conc edes that he w as not q ual ified as an e x per t w it ness but ins is ts that “a rg uments abouthi s q ual ific ati ons or des ig nati on as an e x per t are i rrele v ant” becau se he onl y

i ntended to tes ti fy re g ardin g hi s “ obser v ati ons” and did not int end t o prov ide any

tes ti mony

reg ardin g ac ci dent re cons tr uct ion

. W e di sag re e. Dur ing M uhs’ s o ffer

of proof, hi s a ttor ney

as ked: Q. In ad dition to—in ad dition to the se me asure me nts of the scen e, did y ou research the the oretica l possib ility of a sideswipe betw e e n Mr

. Gar z a’s v ehi cl e and Mr . M ettl en’ s s topped Ford pi ck up? A. Y es, I did

. Q. And af

ter resea rching th e the oretica l p ossibility of it, did y ou a ctua lly g o outand sta rtmeasu ri ng v ehi cl es to s ee i f that c oul d happe n? A. Yes, prelimina ry , y es. Q. And af

ter yo ur prel imi nar

y m easurements , did y ou star t to think that may be th is co uld hav e happe ned? A. Ver

y much so.

. . . . Q. . . . And you w ere try ing to figure out w hat put this streak scratch [sic] down the side of

Mr . Garza’s truck? A

. Mo s td e f in it e ly. Q. Al l ri g ht. And itw as y our feeli ng thata mi rror on a F- 150 i denti cal to that that Mr . M ettl en w as dr iv ing co uld hav e c aused thi s s cratc h? A. Ye s . A s T roop er Pinne ll said, it had to be f rom a not her vehicle10 becau se itst ay ed i n a h or iz ontal pos it ion

.

. . . . Q. —di d y ou try

to re create the streak on this [Garz a’s ] t ru ck sh ow n on Pl ain ti ff ’s Ex hib it19? A. Y es, I did

. Q. And w hat was— how w ere y ou abl e to do that, or w ere y ou abl e to do that? A. Yes, I w as. Q. How

w ere y ou abl e to do th at? A. I had to turn left into th e inside la ne a cross the f ront of the Ford pic kup to do so .

. . . . Q. Oka y . W oul d tha t ex pla in how y our daug hter w as hitby the cor ner

of tha t truck? A. It w oul d be v er

y co nsi ste nt w it h al l the t est imony , inc lud ing her ow n, tha t she ne v er got out f rom in f ront of [Mettlen ’s] Ford truck. Q. And t hat s hows h ow i t c oul d actual ly

happen ? A. It did

. Mu hs nei ther

w it ness ed th e ac ci dent, n o r inspected t he v ehi cl es or sc ene immedi atel y

after the acc ide nt; ins tead, M uhs made his “ obser v ati ons” i n c onj unct ion w it h, and as a resul t of, hi s a ttemptto “rese a rch t he th eoreti cal pos si bil ity of a s ide sw ipe ” betw een Garz a’s v ehicle a nd Mett len’s F-150 by dem onst rating that th e repa ired scratch tha t Muhs claime d to have locate d on the si de of Garza’s v ehicle w as cause d by contact
w it h M ettl en’ s p ass eng er side mir ro r. Mo re ov er , t he abov e tes ti mony demons trates that Mu hs soug ht t o offer

more tha n mere “ obser v ati ons” of the v ehi cl es inv olv ed i n the i nci dent11

in question

. It is clear tha t Muhs’s “feeling tha t a mirror on a F-150 ident ical to tha t tha t Mr. Me ttl en w as dri v ing could hav e caused thi s scratc h” w as based on his recons tr uct ion of the posi tio n s o f

the v ehi cl es at t he ti me of the ac ci dent. Ac cordin g ly , t he tr ial co urt di d not abuse i ts dis creti on by

ex cl udi ng M uhs’ s t est imony and re lat ed ex hib its b e ca u se (1 ) the court was w ithin its discretion to conclu de that M uhs w as in fact be ing called as an expert in acc ide nt recons tr uct ion , see L ope z v. Forem ost Pa ving, In c. , 7 9 6 S

. W

. 2 d 4 7 3 , 4 8 1 (T e x. App.–S an Ant oni o 1990, w ri t dis m’d) ; and ( 2) M uhs conc edes that he w as not q ual ified as an ex per t w it ness . See T EX
. R. E V ID . 702

. Acc ordin g ly , w e ov er ru le Mu hs’ s first is sue. C. Exclu sio n of

M ettl en’ s Pr io r A rre st By hi s fifth i ss ue, M uhs cont ends that the t ri al cour t er re d i n ex cl udi ng ev ide nce of Me ttl en’ s p ri or

ar re st for publ ici ntox ic ati on and poss ess ion of a c ontroll ed s ubst ance. Mu hs tes ti fied th at w ent fis hin g at the Isl and on the morni ng of Octo ber 31, 2005, and c onsumed approx imat ely one pin t of v odka. M ettl en s tated thatw hen he left t he Is lan d that ev eni ng he k new

he wa s int ox ic ated, but did not feel th at he “ w as too i ntox ic ated to dr iv e.” Mett len denied stopp ing and moti oni ng for Ashton to cross in frontof his tr uck and ins is ted t hat Garz a w as approx imat ely 200 to 300 ya rd s in front of him in the i nsi de l ane
w hen Ga rza’ s v ehi cl e c oll ide d w it h As hton. U pon s eei ng As hton ly ing on t he g ro und, Mettlen pulled his truck to the side of the road and “help[ ed] ma ke sure tha t [Asht on] did not g et hi t by another v ehi cl e.” Me ttl en tes ti fied that he spok e to po li ce at t he s cene and g av e a s tatementbefore re tur nin g to his v ehi cl e and dr iv ing off

. Off ic ers pull ed M ettl en ov er j ustouts ide Lag una H eig nts and took hi m back

to the
sc ene of the acc ide nt. M ettl en w as ar re ste d for dr iv ing w hil e i ntox ic ated (“ DW I” ). A breat h a lyzer e xam in a ti o n reve a le d th a t h is b lo o d al co h o l co n te n t was al m o sttwice th e l eg al12

limit. Mettle n w as also cha rg ed wi th po ssession of a contro lle d s u b stan ce after of f icers found Val ium in his poc ket

. Me ttl en l ater pleaded g uil ty

to poss ess ion of a c ontroll ed subs tanc e, an d the D W I c harg e w as dropped. At t ri al, M uhs soug ht t o i ntroduce ev ide nce that Me ttl en had been ar re ste d three
w eeks before the Oct ober 31, 2005 acc ide nt. Mu hs’ s offer of proof rev eal ed that Me ttl en
w as ar re ste d for publ ici ntox ic ati on bythe Ki ng sv il le Pol ic e D epar tment on October

9, 2005, and w as found to be i n pos ses si on of Val ium. O n appea l, M uhs cont ends that the evidence o f

Mettlen’s prior arrest for p ublic intoxication and p ossessio n of V alium shou ld hav e been admitted b ecaus e i t “ is ev ide nce of a w anton and w il lful di sreg ard for the safety of othe rs and relevant to [Muhs’s] gross negli gence claim .” Rule 40 4 of

the T exas Rules of Evi den ce generally proh ibits evi den ce of a person ’s oth er crimes f rom b eing adm itted into evidence ; howev er, Muhs argues tha t the ev iden ce of Mettl en’ s O cto ber

9 ar re st shoul d hav e been admitted a s a n ex cept ion t o r u le 404 becau se itconsti tutes ev ide nce of Me ttl en’ s stat e of m ind at the time of the ac ci dent. See T EX
. R. E V ID
. 4 0 4 (b ) (“E vid e n c e o f o t h e r cr im e s , wro n gs o r a c t s is n o ta d m is s ib le t o p ro ve the c haract er

of a person in order

to show co nformity

therew it h.” ); Cas tr

o v . Se best a , 808 S.W .2d 189 , 194 (Tex. App. –Hou ston [1st Dist.] 19 91, no w rit) (holdin g tha t the trial court
er re d i n ex cl udi ng testi mony that appell ant reg ula rl y smoked mari huana w hil e dri v ing a car becau se, w hen puni ti v e damag es and g ro ss neg li g ence are at is sue, the appel lan t’ s s tate of mind is relevant to prove the level of culpab ility ). A s s u m in g wit h o u td e c id in g t h a tt h e t ri a l c o u rtd id e rr in e xc lu d in g t h is e vid e n c e , we nonethe les s c oncl ude th a t itd id not caus e the rendi ti on of an i mprop er j udg ment. See T EX
. R. A PP . P. 44.1 (a ). M uhs cl aims thatt he tr ial co urt er re d i n ex cl udi ng ev ide nce of13

Mettlen ’s prior arrest beca use the e v iden ce “w as ad missible for the p urpo se of provi ng his gross ne gli ge n c e . ” Ho w ever, M uhs’s argum entig nore s the fact th at alth ough th e jury appor ti oned on ly

3% of the faultof the a cc ide nt t o M ettl en, i t a lso e xpre ss ly found that Mettlen w as grossly

neglig ent and awarded $25,0 00 in pu nitive dama ges. Thu s, beca use the j ur y ente re d a fav orabl e findi ng as to Mu hs on th e i ss ue of M ettl en’ s g ro ss neg li g ence, the t ri al cour

t’ s e x cl usi on of M ettlen ’s p rior ar re st caus ed no har m to M uhs. See i d. Acc ordin g ly , w e ov er ru le Mu hs’ s fifth i ss ue. D. Exc lusion of Mett len’s Subsequent A utomobile Acci dents By hi s s ixth i ss ue, M u h s chall eng es the t ri al cour t’ s e x cl usi on of ev ide nce of Me ttl en’ s i nv olv ement i n four automobi le acc ide nts thatoc cur re d after the date in q uest ion

. Dur ing tr ial , Mu hs cal led Me ttl en as an adv erse w it ness and q uest ion ed hi m, i n per ti nent par t: Q. Do y ou bel iev e dr iv ers s houl d be extra c areful on Hal loween t o be on

the l ookou t for chi ldren? A

. Ce rt a in ly. Q

. W e re yo u t ryi n g t o d ri ve ca re f u ll y? A. Alw ays. Q. And y ou were try ing to d riv e caref ully beca use you knew you were int ox ic ated? A

. Ye s , si r, b u tI d ri ve ca re f u ll y a n ywa y. Q. You’re telling the jury thaty ou’re a ca ref ul driv er? A. Y es , I am . Q. Do y ou want this jury to believe tha t y ou a re a caref ul driv er? A. W ell , I w oul d thi nk so.T h r o u g h a n o ff e r o fp r o o f , M u h s p r e s e n te d e v id e n c e o fM e tt le n ’s in v o lv e m e n t in a u to m o b ile 4 acci dent s t hat occur r ed on August 8, 2007, D ecem ber10, 200 7, August 16, 200 8, and N ov em ber26, 200 8. 14 . . . . Q. Are y ou trying to tell this jury , again, tha t y ou a re a caref ul driv er? A. Dur ing thatev eni ng , of co urse.

. . . . Q. Didn’t y ou sa y

thatto the jury , tha t y ou a re a caref ul driv er? A. Yes, I am a care f ul driv er. The record reflect s t hat M ettl en w as inv olv ed i n four automobi le acc idents after Octob er 31, 2 005

. M uhs a ssert s t hatev iden ce of these subse quent a cciden ts shou ld 4 hav e been adm it te d “ for the li mite d pur pose of impeac hment” bec ause Me ttl en “ opened the d oor” to s uch q uest ion ing by “ lea v [i ng ] t he j ur

y w it h the false i mpres si on th at he w as ‘alw ays’ a ‘caref ul’ driv er.” Al thoug h, “ [s] peci fic i nst ances of the c onduct of a w it ness , for the p ur pose of attac ki ng or

su ppor ti ng the w it ness ’ credi bil ity , ot her than co nv icti on of cr ime

. . . maynot be i nq uired i nto o n c ro ss -e x aminat ion of the w it n e ss n o r prov ed by extr ins icev ide nce, ” T EX
. R. E V ID . 608 (b ), a t ri al cour t may admi t ev ide nce neces sar y to ex pla in a matt er

on wh ich the op posin g party has “open ed th e do or.” SeeT EX
. R. E V ID
. 10 7. H ow ev er , “[e]vidence which is notrele v antis inad missible .” Id. at R . 402 . M ettl en c ontends thatthe tr ial co urt di d noter r by ex clud ing ev ide nce of his su bseq uent automobi le acc ide nts becau se su ch ev ide nce is i rrele v ant a nd unfair ly preju dic ial

. Ass uming w it hout deci din g tha t the trial court did err in ex cluding this evidence, w e no net hele ss conclud e t h a ti t did not c ause the rendi ti on of an i mprop er j udg ment. SeeT EX
. R. A PP . P. 44.1 (a ).15

The propor

ti onate respons ibi li ty

st atute req uires the j ur y to deter mine the perce nta ge of

respon sibility

w ith respe ct to ea ch pe rson’s causin g or cont ributing t o cau se in any w ay the har m for w hic h reco v er y of damag es is so ug ht. SeeT EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN . § 33. 003 (a) (Vernon 2 008 ). “[A] c la im antmay not recover dam ages if his perce nta ge of

respon sibility

is g reate r than 5 0 pe rcent. ” Id. § 33 .001. Attr ial , M ettl en testif ied th at he w as a caref ul driv er; howev er, this test imo ny w as un derm ined byMettlen’s
ow n admi ss ion thathe c onsumed a pin t of v odka on the day in q uest ion , w as ar re ste d for DW I atthe sc ene of

t h e a cc ide nt, and fail ed a breathal yz er tes t w it h a b loo d al cohol cont ent t h a t w as near ly tw ic e the l eg al li mit. I n l ig ht of the foreg oin g , w e s ee not hin g to ind ic ate t hat M ettl en probabl y w oul d hav e been apporti oned a hig her percent ag e of fault— or thatAs hton’ s p ro por

ti onate re spons ibi li ty

w oul d hav e been decreased —had the
ev ide nce of Mettl en’ s s ubseq uent automobi le acc ide nts been admitted. SeeT EX
. R. A PP
. P. 44 .1(a). Mo re ov er , i n q uest ion one of the j ur y charg e, the jur

y found all three par

ti es to be negligent. Muhs doe s not argue th at the ju ry ’s a nswer on the neglig ence q uest ion w ould hav e been different if the compl ain ed of ev ide nce had been admitted. Ins tead, he cont ends that the t rial co urt’ s e rroneous ex cl usi on of the ev ide nce probabl y ca used the
ren di ti on o f an i mp rop er j ud g me ntb ec au s e the ju ryw ou l d no t ha v e rea c he d th e s am e appor ti onment of li abi li ty

if the ev ide nce of Mettl en’ s s ubseq uent automobi le acc ide nts had been ad mitt ed. See id. D espi te t his asser ti on, M uhs fails to adeq uatel y ex pla in how

he
w as har med by

the tr ial co urt’ s e x cl usi on of M ettl en’ s s ubseq uent ar re sts

. See i d. at R. 38.1( i) , 44. 1; see als o Rio Gr ande R eg’

l Hosp., Inc . v

. Vi ll ar re al , N o. 13 -0 8- 00542- CV , 201 0 W L 38 100 19, at *25 (Tex. App. –Corpu s Christi Sept . 30, 201 0, no pet. h.).16

Spec if ica lly, M uhs fails to ex pla in how the jur y ’s propor

ti onate re spons ibi li ty

ca lc ula ti ons
w oul d c hang e i f ev ide nce of Met tl e n ’s su bseq uent automobi le acc ide nts w as admitted. Moreover, Muh s d oes nota ssert tha t the a dm ission of t he excluded evidence would redu ce Asht on’ s p e rce ntag e of respon si bil ity bel ow fiftypercentand conv ert t he ta ke- nothi ng jud g ment i nto a j udg ment und er w hic h damages could be awarded. See T EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN
. § 3 3

. 0 0 1

. Be c a u s e Mu h s h a s f a il e d t o a rt ic u la t e t h e h a rm , if a n y, caus ed by the ex cl usi on of M ettl en’ s subs eq uent automobi le acc ide nts , we cannot
conc lud e that the ex cl usi on of this ev ide nce probabl y ca used the rendi ti on of an i mprop er jud g ment. Rio Grand e Re g’ l Hosp., Inc. , 2 0 1 0 W L 3 8 1 0 0 1 9 , a t*2 5

. Ac c o rd in gl y, we ov er ru le Mu hs’ s s ixth i ss ue. III . C H A R GE E RROR By hi s s econd , t hird, an d fourt h i ss ues, M uhs arg ues that the t ria l co u rterred by ref using to subm it v arious instru ctions co ncern ing Texas highw ay la ws, v olun tary under tak ing of duty , and sp oli ati on of ev ide nce. By hi s sev enth is sue, Mu hs cont ends that the t ri al cour

t er re d by

fail ing to submi t a separate q uest ion co ncer nin g wh e ther M ettl en commi tted int ox ic ati on as saul t. A . St and ard o f Rev iewan d A pp licab le L aw The st andard of rev iew for a ll eg ed er ro r in the j ur y ch arg e i s a buse of dis cre ti on. See Shupe v

. Li ngafelter , 192 S.W .3 d 5 7 7 , 5 79 ( Tex . 200 6) ( per cu ri am). “ W hen a tr ial
cour t refuses to s ubmita req uest ed i nst ru cti on on an i ss ue rais ed by the ple adi ng s a nd
ev ide nce, the q uestio n o n a ppeal i s w hether the re q uestw as re asona bly nec ess ar

y to
ena ble th e jury

to ren d e r a p ro p e r verdict.” Id. (ci ti n g Tex. W orkers’ Com p. In s. Fund

v. Ma ndl bauer , 34 S.W .3d 9 09, 9 12 ( Tex . 200 0) ); see als o T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 277 ( prov idi ng that17

“[ t]he cour

t s hal l submi t such in str uct ion s a nd defini ti ons as shal l be proper to enabl e the jury to v end er a v erdict”), 2 7 8 ( p ro v iding that “[t]h e cou rt shall subm it the questio ns, in s t r u c t i o n s a n d d e fi n i t i o n s . . . w h i c h a re ra i s e d b y t h e w r i t t e n p l e a d i ng s a nd th e ev ide nce” ). Tri al cour

ts are afforded c onsi derabl e di sc re ti on w hen submitti ng inst ru cti ons, and altho ugh trial courts mu st explain any te c h n ic a l or l egal terms to the jury, they posse ss
w ide di sc re ti on to dete rmi ne w hether su ch ex pla nati ons are s uff ic ien t. Lum ber m ens Mu t. C as . C o. v

. Ga r cia , 758 S.W .2d 893 , 894 (Tex. App. –Corpu s Christi 198 8, w rit denied ); K-Mart Co rp. v. Trottie , 677 S.W .2d 632 , 636 (Te x . App .–Hou ston [1st Di st.] 19 84, w rit ref ’d
n.r .e.)

. A tr ial courtabuses it s dis creti on if itacts ar bit ra ri ly or w it hout re ferenc e to g uid ing
ru les and pr inc ipl es. W alk er , 827 S.W .2d a t 840

. W e w il l not rev erse a j ur y v erdict for the t ri al cour t’ s refusal to s ubmitan i nst ru cti on unle ss the ref usal prob ably caused the ren dition of an imp rope r judgmen t or proba bly p re vent ed th e c omplai nin g par ty from present ing the cas e on appeal

. C olum bi a Rio Gr ande Healthc ar

e, L. P. v . Hawley, 284 S.W .3d 851, 856 ( Tex . 200 9) ; Shupe , 192 S.W .3d at 57 9. Cha rg e er ro r is g enerall y co nsi dered har mf ul if i t relate s to a contes ted, cr it ic al is sue. Hawley, 284 S.W .3d a t 856. “E rror in the o mis si on of an i ss ue i s h ar mles s ‘ w hen the f indings of

the jury in answer to othe r issues are suf f icient to suppo rt the jud gmen t.’” Shupe , 1 9 2 S. W .3 d at57 9 (quo ti n g Boatl and of Houston, Inc. v. Bai ley, 609 S.W .2d 7 43, 750 ( Tex . 198 0) ); see als o Al var ado , 897 S.W .2d a t 752 (n oti ng thata j ur y q uest ion may be i mmater ial , and therefore i ts submi ss ion har mles s, “w hen i ts answ er ca n be found elsewhere in the v erdict or w hen its answ er cann ot alte r the ef fect of the verdict”). B. Texa s Transportation Code and Voluntary Undertaking of D utyT he g ener al neg l i gence quest i on was subm i t t ed t o t he j ur y as f ol l ows: 5 T he l aw re qui r es t hat a pedest r i an shal l y i el d r i ght ofw ay t o a v ehi cl e i n t he h i ghway ifc r o s s in g a r o a d w a y a t a p la c e o th e r t h a n a m a r k e d c r o s s w a lk o r a t a n u n m a r k e d c r o s s w a lk at an i nterse c t i on . A fa i l ure t o c om pl y w i t h t hi s l aw i s ne gl i ge nc e i n i t s el f.

D i d t he n egl i gence, i fany , of t hose nam ed b el ow pr oxi m at el y cause t he o ccur r ence i n qu est i on? Answer “ Yes” or“ N o” f oreach of t he f ol l owi ng:
a. Asht on M uhs y es b. W hat abur ger , I nc. and R ober t G onz al ez G ar z a y es
c. M i chael Lee M et t l en y es A t t ri al , M uh s di d n ot ob j ec t t o t he ab ove i ns t ru c ti o n re ga rdi ng pe de s t ri an s y i el di ng ri gh t -of-w ay ; m ore ove r, h e d o e s n o t c h a lle n g e its in c lu s io n o n a p p e a l. 18 By hi s s econd i ss ue, Mu hs arg ues that the tr ial cour t’ s re fusal to ins tr uct the jur y on
v ar iou s p ro v is ion s o f the Tex as Trans por tati on Cod e i n c o nnect ion w it h the g eneral neg l i g e n c e q u e s t i o n s u b mi t t e d t o t h e j u r y re s u l t e d i n a n e r ro n e o u s j u r y c harg e. 5 S p e c if ic a ll y, Mu h s co n t e n d s t h a tt h e fo ll o win g i n s t ru c t io n s we re n e c e s s a ry: Dr iv in g on R oad w ay

L aned for

T raf fi c. An ope ra tor on a ro adw ay di v ide d int o two or

more c lea rl y

mar ked lan es for traff ic , ( 1) sh all dri v e as nearl y as pract ic al enti re ly

w it hin a s ing le lan e, an d ( 2 ) maynot mov e from t he l ane unl ess thatmov ement c an be made s afely

. . . . Fo llo w in g Di st ance . An op erato r shall, if followi ng anot her v eh i cle, ma intain an as sured c lea r dis tanc e betw een the tw o v ehi cl es so that, co nsi der ing the speed of the v ehi cl es, traff ic , and the condi ti ons of the hi g hw ay , t he operator can safely

st op w it hout coll id in g wit h the precedi ng v ehi cl e or v eer ing i nto another v ehi cl e, ob

ject, or person on or

near the hig hw ay . . . . Ma ximu m S peed R equiremen t. An ope ra tor may not dr iv e at a s peed g re ater than i s reason a b le a n d pr udent under the ci rc umstan ces then ex is ti ng . . . . Ma ximu m S peed R equ irem ent . An ope ra tor may not dr iv e a v ehi cl e at a speed g re ater

than i s reas o n a b le and pr udent under the condi ti ons and hav ing reg ard for act ual and potent ial haz ards then ex is ti ng . . . . Ma ximu m S peed R equ irem ent . An operator shal l cont ro l the speed of the v ehicle a s nece ssaryto avoid colliding w ith an oth er person o r vehicle tha t is19

on o r entering the h ighw ay in com pliance w ith law and the du ty of

each person to us e due care. . . . Ma ximu m Speed R equ irem ent . An operator shal l dr iv e at an appropr iat e re duced sp eed i f a spec ial haz ard ex is ts w it h reg ard to tra ff ic , i ncl udi ng pedes tr ian s, or

w eather or hi g hw ay co ndi ti ons. . . . Dr ivers to Exercise Du e C are. T he ope rator of a vehicle shall, (1) ex ercise due c are to av oid co ll idi ng w it h a p edest ri an on a roadw ay , ( 2) g iv e w ar nin g by so undi n g the hor n w hen nec ess ar y , and ( 3) ex erci se proper precaut ion on obs er v ing a c hil d or

an o bv iou sl y

co nfused or

i ncapa ci tated person on a ro adw ay . . . . (E mphasi s i n or ig ina l)

. See T EX
. T R ANSP
. C OD E A NN
. §§ 545 .06 0, 54 5.0 62(a ), 545. 351 (a), (b ), ( c) (5 ), 552. 008 ( Ver non 199 9)

. Muhs arg ues that the t ri al cour t’ s e x cl usi on of the abov e i nst ru cti ons prev ented the j ur y from render ing a proper v erd ict b e ca use itw as una ble “to prop erly

dete rmine w ho h ad th e rig ht-of-w ay.” Addi ti onal ly , by

hi s t hird i ss ue, M uhs ass erts that the tr ial cour t er re d by

refusing to inc lud e the foll ow ing i nst ru cti on:

V o l u n t a r

y U n d e rt a k i n g o f

D u ty. Y ou are i nst ru cte d tha t a person w ho unde rt akes an a ff ir mati v e c ourse of acti on for the b enefit of another has a duty to ex erci se rea sonab le care that the other person w il l not be i nju re d the reby

. A pe rs on w ho ow es no l eg al du ty , bu t w ho g rat ui to us l y acts, ass umes a duty

to actw it h reason abl e c are s o as t o p re ven t har m to ano the r. (E mphasi s i n or ig ina l)

. Mu h s a rg ues that the e v ide nce demonst ra tes thati f Mett len had the r ig ht- of-w ay , he v olu ntar il y y iel ded i t w hen he g est ured to Ashton to “c ro ss in frontof his pi ck up tr uck ” and t hat “ [a]s a g ro w n adul t, Me ttl en as sumed the respon si bil ity of acti ng re asona bly

w hen he g est ured a 14- y ear-o ld g ir l to enter hi s l ane . . . . ” M uhs ins is ts that “t he j ur y w as ‘c onfused’ i n del ibe ra ti ng the neg li g ence of the par ti es” bec ause of the tr ial
cour t’ s refusal to s ubmitthe abov e i nst ru cti on. I n Brooksh ire Bros., Inc. v. Lew is , a broad- form neg li g ence ins truc tion w as20

submi tted to t he j ur

y w it hout ex pla n a tor

y i nst ru cti ons re g ardin g the spec ificduti es employ ers o w e to thei r employ ees. 997 S.W .2d 908, 921 ( Tex . Ap p.–Bea umont 19 99, p et. deni ed)

. The cour

t of appeal s n oted that a tr ial co urt i s req uired to g iv e defini ti ons of leg al and t echni cal ter ms and st ates that“ [a]nythi ng el se, how ev er int erest ing or re lev ant to t he case in gene ral, that doe s not aid the jury in answering the issues, m ust be ex clude d.” Id. The Br ookshire Bro s. cour

t hel d tha t bec ause “[ t]he jur y w as proper ly

i nst ru cte d on the ter ms of ‘ neg li g ence, ’ ‘ordin ar y care, ’ and ‘prox imat e cause, ’” the ex pla nator y i nst ru cti ons cons ti tuted “ sur plu s i nst ru cti ons” and w ere proper ly ex cl uded. Id. In t he presentca se, t h e j ur y w as ask ed to dete rmi ne w hether eac h of the three par ti es w as neg li g ent. As i n Br oo k s hi r e Bros. , the j ur

y ch arg e i nst ru cte d the j ur y on t he ter ms of “ neg li g ence, ” “o rd ina ry ca re ,” and “p ro x imat e c ause. ” Thus, the exc lud ed instructio ns w ere no t reason ably necessa ry to en able the jury to rend er a prope r v erdict and w ere proper ly

ex cl uded as su rp lus i nst ru cti ons. See i d. A c c o rd in gl y, the trial court’s
re fusal to i nst ru ct the j ur y w it h thes e i nst ru cti ons w as not a n abus e of di sc re ti on. See i d. Mo re o ve r, a lt h o u gh Mu h s co n t e n d s t h a tt h e t ri a l c o u rt ’s re f u s a l t o su b m itt h e a b o ve instructio ns prob ably caused the rend ition of an im prop er judgme nt, h e fails to ade quately
ex pla in how

he was har med bythe tr ial court ’s ex cl usi on of the ins tr uct ion s. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.1( i) , 44. 1; Ri o Gr ande R eg’

l Hos p. , 2 0 1 0 W L 3 8 1 0 0 1 9 , a t*2 5

. Sp e c if ic a ll y, Mu h s fa ils to exp la in ho w th e ju ry’s pro p o rt io n a te re sp o n sib ili ty ca lcu la ti o n s wo u ld ch a n ge if the abov e inst ru cti ons had been incl uded in the jur y ch arg e. Fur

ter more, M uhs does not
ass ert t hat t he admi ss ion of the abov e ins tr uct ion s woul d reduce As hton’ s p ercent ag e of
re spons ibi li ty

bel ow fiftypercentand conv ert t he ta ke- nothi ng j udgm e n t into a jud g ment under w hic h damag es coul d be aw arded. SeeT EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN . § 33.001.21

Becau se M u h s h a s fai led to arti cul ate t he har m, i f any , c aused by the ex cl usi on of the abov e i nst ru cti ons, w e c annot conc lud e tha t thei r ex cl usi on probabl y caus ed the rendi ti on of an i mprop er

j udg ment. See Rio Grande Reg’ l Hosp., Inc. , 201 0 W L 3810019, at *25. Accordin gly , w e overrule Muhs’s second and third issues. C. Spolia tion By hi s four th i ss ue, M uhs cont ends that the t ri al cour t er re d by

refusing to inc lud e an inst ructi o n o n spoliatio n in the jury charge. Specif ically , Muhs con ten ds tha t San dra Hal e, W hataburg er ’s direct or of ris k mana g ement, “n eg li g entl y or i ntent ion all y ” dest ro y ed photog ra phs that show ed th e damag e t h a t Ga rz a’s v ehi cl e s ust ain ed i n the October 31, 2005 i nci dent. Mu hs arg ues that the photog ra phs w oul d hav e assi ste d him i n prov ing that Garza’s tr uck sideswiped Mettlen ’s v ehicle b efore hittin g Asht on a nd th at th e trial court’s
re fusal to s ubmita spol iat ion ins tr uct ion “was har mf ul and probabl y ca used or

co ntr ibu ted to an i mprop er

j udg ment.” Dur ing tr ial , H ale tes ti fied th at s he i s W hataburg er ’s di re cto r of ri sk manag ement and i s respon si ble for o v erseei ng “ thi rd par ty admi n ist ra tors for [W hataburg er ’s ] non
subs cr ibe r w or kers c omp prog ra m and g eneral li abi li ty an d proper

ty damag e for W hataburg er

bui ldi ng s.” Hal e sta ted t hat l iab il ity cl aims ag ain st W hataburg er empl oy ees
w ho d riv e v ehicles d o no t fall und er her dep artm ent . Th e jury hea rd evi den ce tha t w hile Ha le wa s co n d u ct in g a cl a s s a ta W h a t a b u rg e r t ra in in g c e n t e r i n t h e Ri o G ra n d e V a ll e y, she lea rn ed of Gar

z a’s October

31, 2005 c oll is ion

. Hal e tes ti fied th at after the inc ide nt, she took “ les s t han fiv e” phot og ra phs of Garz a’s tr uck w it h h e r Spr intce ll ula r tel ephone, but
nev er pr int ed outthe photos

. Hal e s tated thatsh e w as unabl e to produce the photog ra phs at t ri al becau se she no l ong er had acc ess to them. H ale ex plain e d tha t i n 2006, sh e22

sw it ched her

ce ll phone prov ide r from Spr int to Ver iz on in order to tak e adv antag e of the OnS tar feat ure, which req uired Ve riz on, in a new v ehicle th at s he h ad p urcha sed. Hale tes ti fied th at s he attempted to retr iev e the phot og ra phs in 2008 atthe re q uestof W hataburg er ’s att or ney by co ntacti ng Spr int

v ia tel e p hone an d onl ine ch at. A S pr int
re present ati v e i nformed H ale thatbec ause her Spr intac countw as n o l ong er acti v e, t he photog ra phs w ere unav ail abl e. W hen asked her purpo se for pho tograph ing Garz a’s truck, Hale stat ed, “No purp ose, in case som eon e ne ede d th e m f or the f utu re, butno pu rpose at all.” H ale tes ti fied th at atthe ti me she phot og ra p hed t he tr uck sh e “ w oul dn’ t hav e k now n” thata lawsui t c oncer nin g the Oct ober 31, 2005 i nci dent w oul d be filed

. “A spoliatio n instructio n i s an instruct ion giv en to the jury out lining permissible inferences they may make ag ain st a par ty w ho has los t, alt ered, o r dest ro y ed ev ide nce. ” Tex. E le c . C o op. v. Dillard , 171 S.W .3d 2 01, 2 08 ( Tex . Ap p.–Ty ler 2005, no p et.) ( ci ti ng Br ewer v. Dowl

ing , 862 S.W .2d 1 56, 1 59 ( Tex . Ap p.–F ort W orth 19 93, w ri t den ied ))

. The
use of a spol iat ion i nst ru cti on i s g enerall y l imi ted to tw o c ircums tanc es: ( 1) the del ibe ra te dest ruction of relevant evidence; and (2) the failure of a party to produce relevant evidence
or to ex pla in it s n on- product ion

. W al- Ma rt Stores, Inc. v. Jo hnson , 106 S.W .3d 7 18, 7 21 (T e x. 20 0 3 ) (ci ti n g Anderso n v. T ayl or Publ ’ g C o. , 13 S.W .3d 5 6, 61 ( Tex . Ap p.–D all as 2000, pet. deni ed) ). U nder the firs t circums tanc e, a par ty w ho has del ibe ra tel y

des troy ed
ev ide nce is presumed to hav e done so becau se the e v ide nce w as unfav orabl e to it s c ase. Id. a t7 2 1
- 2 2 ( c it in g W

illiford Energy Co. v. Submergible Cable Se rvs., Inc. , 895 S.W .2d 379, 389- 90 ( Tex . Ap p.–Amar il lo 1994, no w ri t) ; Br ewer , 862 S. W .2d a t 159 ). U nder the
sec ond c ircums tanc e, t he presumpt ion ar is es becau se the p arty co ntroll ing the mis si ng23

ev ide nce canno t ex pla in it s fai lure to produce i t. Id. at72 2 (cit in g W atso n v. Brazos Elec. Power Coop. , Inc. , 918 S.W .2d 6 39, 6 43 ( Tex . Ap p.–W aco 1996, w ri t den ie d )). “ The presu mp tion d oes n ota p ply w hen docu me nts are m erely lost.” Cr est havenNur

si ng Reside nce v. Fr

eem an , 134 S.W .3d 2 14, 2 27 ( Tex . Ap p.–Amar ill o 2 0 0 3 , no pet. ) (c it ing W il li for d Ener gy Co. , 895 S.W .2d a t 389 -9 0) ; Br ewer , 862 S.W .2d at 160. A tr ial co urt may be g uid ed by

the follo w ing three factors in deter mini ng w hether a s pol iat ion presumpt ion is j ust ified : (1 ) whe ther there w as a duty

to preser

v e ev ide nce; ( 2) w hether the all eg ed spol iat or ei ther neg li g e n tl y o r in tenti onal ly sp oli ated ev ide nce; and (3 ) w hether the spol iat ion prejud iced t he nons pol iat or ’s abi li ty to presenti ts cas e or

defense. Trevino v. Or tega , 969 S.W .2d 9 50, 9 5 4 -5 5 (Tex . 199 8) ( Bake r, J. , c oncur ri ng ); W hirlpoo l Corp. v. Cam acho , 251 S.W .3d 88, 102 (Tex . App.–C or pus Chr is ti 2008) , re v’ d on other

gr ounds , 298 S.W .3d 631 (Tex. 2009 ). Assum ing there w as a du ty to prese rv e the ev iden ce, th e trial co urt did no t abu se it s d is creti on i n refusing to submi t a spol iat ion inst ru cti on becaus e W hataburg er ex pla ine d its non -produ ction o f

the ph oto graph s and the re is no e v iden ce tha t the pho tograph s w ere eithe r neglig ent ly

or intent iona lly

spoliate d or tha t the alleged spoliation prejud iced Muhs’s abi li ty to presenthi s c ase. See Johnso n , 106 S.W .3d a t 721 -2 2; W hir lpo ol , 251 S.W .3d at 10 2. H ale tes ti fied th at s he to ok “l ess than fiv e” phot ogra p h s o f Garz a’s tr uck

on h er Spr intce ll ula r phone. Al thoug h H ale tes ti fied th at s he had email ed an int er net l ink t o acc ess the photos to someone inv est ig ati ng the cas e, t here i s n o ev ide nce that Hal e w as ever i n p o s s ession of

hard cop ies of

the ph oto s thatshe ha d take n. In 20 06, Hale
sw it ched from Spr intto Ver iz on i n order us e the OnS tar

fea tu re i n h er

v ehi cl e. Unb eknow nstto Hal e, up on te rmi nati ng her Spr intac coun t, acc ess to all of the24

pho tograph s thatshe ha d take n on her Sprint ph one w ere no longe r a v ailable . Hale testif ied th at as a resu lt, she was no longer a b le t o view

pho tograph s—tho se of Garz a’s tr uck as w ell as personal photog ra phs—that she had taken w it h her Spri nt phone. In l ig ht of this evi den ce, th e trial court could h ave conclud ed th at W hat abu rg er did no t neglig ent ly
or i ntent ion all y

des troy the p hotog ra phs of Garz a’s tr uck

. See Wil li for d Ener gy Co. , 895 S.W .2d a t 389 -9 0; Br

ewer , 862 S.W .2d a t 160

. Mo re ov er , G arz a tes ti fied th at hi s t ru ck su sta ine d damag e as a resul t of the October 31, 2 005 i nci dent, and he mar ked photog ra phs of his tr uck to ind ic ate t he loc ati on of the
re d mar k that ra n hor iz ontal ly dow n the dr iv er ’s si de of hi s tr uck

. Thus, any har m caus ed by the non- product ion of the p hotog ra phs w as mini mal in li g ht of Gar z a’s tes ti mony

and the cumul ati v e nat ure of the ev ide nce and did not prej udi ce Muh s’ s abil ity to presenthis cas e. See W hir lpo ol Cor

p. , 251 S.W .3d a t 102

. Thus, after rev iew ing the re cord, w e c annot
conc lud e tha t t he tri al cour t abu sed it s d is creti on by refusing to submi t a spol iat ion ins tr uct ion

. W e ov er ru le Mu hs’ s four th i ss ue. D. In to xicat io n A

ssau lt By his sev enth is sue, Mu hs arg ues that the tr ial cour t er re d by

fail ing to submi t t he follo w ing q uest ion :

Do y ou find by

a preponderance of t h e e vidence tha t M ic hael Lee Mettlen , by accide nt or mista ke, w hile op eratin g a mo tor v ehicle in a p ublic place w hile intoxicated , by reaso n of thatintoxication, cau sed se rious bod ily injuryto Asht on Muh s? “S er iou s bodil y

inju ry ” means inj ur

y thatcreates a s ubst anti al ri sk of death or thatca uses se ri ous per manent dis fig urement or protract ed l oss or impai rmentof the funct ion of any bodi ly member or org an. “Into x icated ” mea ns:25 (A ) n o t h a v i n g t h e n o r ma l u s e o f me n t a l o r p h y s i c a l fa c u l ti es by re a so n of

t h e i n tro d u ct io n o f

a lco h o l, a c o n tro lle d s u b st a n ce , a dru g, a dan gerous drug, a com bina tion o f tw o or mo re of

those substa nces, or any othe r subs tanc e i nto t he body ; or (B ) hav ing an a lc ohol co ncent ra ti on of 0.08 or more. “Alcoho l concen tration ” mea ns the num ber of g rams o f

alcoho l per: (A ) 210 l it ers o f breat h; (B ) 100 mi ll il it ers o f blood; or (C ) 67 mi ll il it ers o f uri ne. Lit ig ants a re enti tl ed to hav e c ontroll ing fact i ss ues submi tted to t he j ur y . Tr iplex Com m c’ ns, Inc . v. Riley, 900 S.W .2d 7 16, 7 18 ( Tex . 199 5)

. Dur ing tr ial , M ettl en admi tted that he w as int ox ic ated at the time of the Oct ober

31, 2005 i nci dent, and itw as undi sput ed that Asht on s ust ain ed s er iou s b odi ly i nju ry . Thus, the o nly f a cti ss u e w as w hether Mettlen ’s intoxi cation w as a c a u s e of the accid ent . Th e trial court sub mitt ed b road -form neg li g ence and g ro ss neg li g ence q uest ion s to t he j ur y , and the jur

y found thata po rt ion of the h ar m suffered byAshton w as caus ed byMettl en’ s neg li g ence and g ro ss neg li g ence. Tex as Rul e of Ci v il Procedu re 278 prov ide s that “[ a] jud g ment shal l not b e rev ersed be c au s e of t he fai lure to subm i t ot he r v ar i ou s p ha s es o r

d i fferen t s ha de s o f t he s am e question .” T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 278. Unde r the facts of this case, the intoxicat io n a s s a ult q uest ion w as merel y

a di fferent s hade of the neg li g ence q uest ion

. See i d. ; Sh e ldon L. Pollack Corp. v. Falcon Indus., Inc. , 794 S.W .2d 3 80, 3 83 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 1990,
w rit denied ). Accordingly , the trial court did notabu se its discretion in ref using t o sub mit a j ur y q uest ion co ncer nin g i ntox ic ati on as saul t. W e ov er ru le Mu hs’ s s ev enth is sue.26 IV. C ONCL US I ON Hav ing ov er ru led al l of Muhs ’s i ss ues, w e aff ir m the jud g ment of the tr ial co urt.

RO GELI O VA LDE Z Chief Justice
Del iv ered and filed the 18th day of Nov ember , 201 0.