law-expert-opinion-testimony | admission exclusion of evidence | evidentiary rulings review on appeal
harmful error analysis rule |
ADMISSIBILITY OF EXPERT TESTIMONY
Whirlpool Corp. v. Camacho, No. 08-0175 (Tex. Dec. 11, 2009)(Johnson)
(product liability suit, design defect, laundry dryer fire, expert testimony)(judgment on jury verdict reversed)
WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION v. MARGARITA CAMACHO, ET AL.; from Hidalgo County;
13th district (13-05-00361-CV, 251 SW3d 88, 01-17-08)
The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and renders judgment.
Justice Phil Johnson delivered the opinion of the Court [in pdf]
(Justice Guzman not sitting)
View Electronic Briefs in WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION v. CAMACHO
An expert’s opinion, to be admissible, must be relevant and reliable. Exxon Pipeline Co.
v. Zwahr, 88 S.W.3d 623, 628 (Tex. 2002). To be relevant, the expert’s opinion must be
based on the facts; to be reliable, the opinion must be based on sound reasoning and
methodology. Id. at 629; Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc. v. Havner, 953 S.W.2d 706, 714
(Tex. 1997). We review a trial court’s determination that a witness’s testimony is
unreliable for an abuse of discretion. Helena Chem. Co. v. Wilkins, 47 S.W.3d 486, 499
(Tex. 2001). A trial court abuses its discretion in excluding expert testimony if the
testimony is relevant to the issues in the case and is based on a reliable foundation.
Zwahr, 88 S.W.3d at 628; Helena Chem. Co., 47 S.W.3d at 499.
State of Texas v. Central Expressway Sign Associates, No. 08-0061 (Tex. Nov. 20, 2009)(Subst. Op. by O'Neill)
(condemnation, proper method for determining market value, admissibility of expert testimony, methods to
appraise market value of condemned property)
THE STATE OF TEXAS v. CENTRAL EXPRESSWAY SIGN ASSOCIATES, ET AL.; from Dallas County;
5th district (05 06 00003 CV, 238 SW3d 800, 08 31 07)
motion for rehearing denied
The Court's opinion of June 26, 2009 is withdrawn and the opinion of this date is issued.
The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to the trial court.
Justice O'Neill delivered the opinion of the Court.
(Justice Guzman not sitting)