Court Opinion

ID: 9640022
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 16:55:41.366596+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:25.308626
License: Public Domain

WILSON, Justice,
concurring.
I agree with the majority’s holding that the exclusion of the appellant’s expert, Mr. Loomis, was error even though a countervailing expert of the appellees was also excluded. I further agree that the exclusion of the expert probably did cause a rendition of an *182improper judgment when considered alone or when considered in conjunction with certain other evidentiary rulings made by the trial court and assigned as error.
After considering the entire record as we are obligated to do under McCraw v. Maris, 828 S.W.2d 756, 758 (Tex.1992), I note the trial court’s expressed motivation in excluding some otherwise relevant evidence was to shorten the trial’s duration. However difficult the press of large dockets may become, shortening a trial cannot become an end in itself. Jury trials under our prevailing system are not summary trials. To me, the reality of this proceeding was that the trial court’s numerous exclusionary evidentiary rulings effectively stripped the flesh and blood from the plaintiffs case and left only a prima facie skeleton to present to the jury. For this and for other reasons, I join the majority.