Court Opinion

ID: 9604127
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 02:15:18.000592+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:02:18.608720
License: Public Domain

OPINION

BOB PEMBERTON, Justice,
concurring.
I join in the judgment. In light of the Texas Supreme Court’s recent guidance on the admissibility of expert testimony, Volkswagen of Am., Inc. v. Ramirez, 159 S.W.3d 897, 2004 Tex. LEXIS 1429 (Tex.2004), I have reservations regarding the district court’s admission of some of the expert testimony Ford challenges. See also Gammill v. Jack Williams Chevrolet, Inc., 972 S.W.2d 713, 727 (Tex.1998); E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Robinson, 923 S.W.2d 549, 557 (Tex.1995). However, even under Volkswagen, I agree with the majority that the district court did not abuse its discretion in permitting Ledes-ma’s expert Geert Aerts to testify regarding his theory that uneven u-bolt leg lengths eventually caused Ledesma’s truck axle and driveshaft to separate, causing the accident.
Based on this and other admissible evidence in the record, I would conclude that any error in admitting other expert testimony was harmless and affirm the judgment.