Separate Opinion by Wainwright in

    TXI Transportation Co. v. Hughes, No. 07-0541 (Tex. Mar. 12, 2010)(illegal immigrant status of
    defendant in deadly wreck suit prejudicial in jury trial, new trial ordered)
    [W]e do not agree that evidence of the driver’s illegal status was either relevant or harmless.
    Accordingly, we reverse the court of appeals’s judgment and remand the cause for a new trial.
    2nd district (02-04-00242-CV, 224 SW3d 870, 05-24-07)  
    The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to the trial court.
    Justice Medina delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Jefferson, Justice Hecht, Justice
    O'Neill, Justice Green, Justice Willett, and Justice Guzman joined, and in Part III of which Justice
    Wainwright joined. [pdf]
    Justice Wainwright delivered an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part
    (Justice Johnson not sitting)
    View Electronic Briefs in 07-0541 TXI TRANSPORTATION CO. v. HUGHES   

TXI Transportation Co. v. Hughes (Tex. 2010)(Wainwright, writing separately)  

Argued October 16, 2008

       Justice Wainwright, concurring in part and dissenting in part.

       The vehicle accident in this case occurred in the gravel truck’s eastbound lane when the
westbound Yukon sport utility vehicle crossed the center line of the highway. This is undisputed. All five
eyewitnesses in three separate vehicles who spoke to the question, some from better vantages than
others, testified that they never saw the gravel truck in the westbound lane. Yet the claimant’s expert
opined that the gravel truck driver caused the accident. It allegedly crossed into the westbound lane,
forced the Yukon to move into the eastbound lane in a defensive maneuver, and then returned to the
eastbound lane to cause the collision. The expert reviewed and discussed physical evidence in the
form of gouge marks on the road, collision damage to both vehicles, brake mark angles, and speed
and braking information from the Yukon’s black box. I have serious concerns about the admissibility of
the expert’s causation testimony because, among other reasons, the expert has not sufficiently
addressed the eyewitness testimony. See, e.g., Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco
Corp., 509 U.S. 209, 243 (1993) (holding that expert testimony is not admissible when it is not
supported by sufficient facts or when the evidence in the case contradicts or otherwise renders the
opinion unreasonable); see also TXI Transp. Co. v. Hughes, 224 S.W.3d 870, 923, 927–29 (Tex. App.
—Fort Worth, pet. granted) (Gardner, J., dissenting) (addressing the eyewitness testimony and other
reasons to exclude the expert’s opinion). I respectfully concur in part and dissent in part, joining only
Section III of the Court’s opinion.

Dale Wainwright