Source: http://texas-opinions.com/10-TXI-Transportation-Co-v-Hughes-by-Medina-illegal-immigrant-status-of-defendant-in-wreck-suit-prejudicial-new-trial.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 08:55:28+00:00

Document:
cause for a new trial.
Neill, Justice Green, Justice Willett, and Justice Guzman joined, and in Part III of which Justice Wainwright joined.
testimony was reliable and therefore legally sufficient to support the plaintiffs’ verdict. 224 S.W.3d 870, 888.
or harmless. Accordingly, we reverse the court of appeals’s judgment and remand the cause for a new trial.
collision killed everyone in the Yukon except Hughes’s infant grandson.
and TXI.1 224 S.W.3d at 881.
defensively into the eastbound lane where the collision occurred.
is relevant when it assists the jury in determining an issue or in understanding other evidence. Tex. R. Evid.
57 (Tex. 1995) (discussing Tex. R. Evid. 702).
comports with the applicable professional standards.’” Helena Chem. Co. v. Wilkins, 47 S.W.3d 486, 499 (Tex.
cases like this to analyze whether the expert’s opinion actually fits the facts of the case. Volkswagen of Am., Inc.
significant analytical gaps in the expert’s opinion that undermine its reliability. Id.
Yukon’s direction, forcing the Yukon’s rear end to move clockwise and adopt the gravel truck’s trailer’s angle.
scrape marks before the Yukon re-entered the westbound lane.
with the second axle, assuming it took one-eighth of a second for its wheel damage to create the gouge mark.
been made eleven feet from the point of initial impact with the second axle.
created by the Yukon and angled in roughly the same direction as the gouge mark.
executed a dangerous steering maneuver likely resulting in a rollover or spillage that did not occur.
time estimates instead of physical data.
Marshek’s reliance on Rodriguez’s statements does not distort Rodriguez’s testimony. In City of Keller v.
inconsistency in Rodriguez’s testimony based on his review of the physical evidence.
Marshek’s use of Rodriguez’s testimony also did not violate accepted accident reconstruction protocol.
theory upon the witness’s testimony, but instead based it on other evidence.
at Painter’s use of a computer simulation, and its inability to consider the vehicles’ specific steering angles.
angle from the physical evidence and Rodriguez’s testimony.
opinion proffered.’” Ledesma, 242 S.W.3d at 39 (quoting Gen. Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 146 (1997)).
629 (citing Gammill, 972 S.W.2d at 728).
the manufacturer’s complaints about the expert testimony ultimately went to its weight and not its admissibility.
detached from the stub axle, the wheel was found under the rear wheel well after the accident. Id. at 902.
theory to any physical evidence in the case or to any tests or calculations prepared to substantiate his theory.
Antonio v. Pollock, 284 S.W.3d 809, 818 (Tex. 2009) (quoting Burrow v. Arce, 997 S.W.2d 229, 235 (Tex.
court therefore did not abuse its discretion by admitting the testimony.
questions on this subject prejudiced its defense and effectively denied it a fair trial.
or experience to safely operate a commercial vehicle. 49 C.F.R. §§ 383.23, 391.11(b)(2)–(7), 391.15.
investigate, screen, or supervise its [hirees] proximately caused the injuries the plaintiffs allege’”(quoting Doe v.
the entrustment or hiring to be negligent caused the accident at issue. Schneider, 744 S.W.2d at 597.
another employer, but not the employee’s proclivity for violence).
license created a foreseeable risk that Rodriguez would negligently drive the gravel truck.” 224 S.W.3d at 914.
relevant and was more prejudicial than probative.” Id. at 897 n.32. We fail to see the connection.
Rodriguez’s immigration status, or why extrinsic evidence was admitted on the subject.
party may not cross-examine a witness on a collateral matter, then contradict the witness’s answer”).
admit this evidence, it was not harmful. 224 S.W.3d at 897.
Fire Ins. Co. v. Reese, 584 S.W.2d 835, 841 (Tex. 1979)).
• was previously deported and ordered not to return to the United States for ten years.
misrepresentations were inflammatory and deliberately calculated to cause the jury to disbelieve Rodriguez.
him.” 224 S.W.3d at 931 (Gardner, J., dissenting). We agree.
have been at fault for the collision in his lane, but the issue was hotly contested.
trial court for a new trial.
Hughes has not appealed that decision. 224 S.W.3d at 917–18.
(6) the non-judicial uses which have been made of the theory or technique. Robinson, 923 S.W.2d at 557.
Hughes made her evasive steering decision, and he also noted a large ditch to Hughes’s right.
gravel truck crossing the center line and causing the accident.
if reasonable jurors could, and disregarding contrary evidence unless reasonable jurors could not.” 168 S.W.
credibility. Thus, by itself, such evidence is not admissible for impeachment purposes.”); First Am. Bank v. W.
F.2d 76, 79 (4th Cir. 1989) (accord).
outweighed by unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, and misleading of the jury”); Clemente v. State, 707 P.
that immigration status . . . is outweighed by any unfair prejudice”); Klapa v. O&Y Liberty Plaza Co., 645 N.Y.S.
inherent bias among certain segments of society against illegal immigrants.”); Romero v. Boyd Bros. Transp.
918–19 (Ill. App. Ct. 1992).

References: v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.