# Txi Transportation Company v. Randy Hughes

> Texas Supreme Court · March 12, 2010

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2828991

## Case

- **Court:** Texas Supreme Court
- **Decided:** March 12, 2010
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2828991

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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

## Opinion text

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
════════════
No. 07-0541
════════════
TXI Transportation Company, et
al., Petitioners,
v.
Randy Hughes, et al.,
Respondents
════════════════════════════════════════════════════
On Petition for Review from
the
Court of Appeals for the
Second District of Texas
════════════════════════════════════════════════════
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
Justice
OPINION DELIVERED: March 12, 2010

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2828991. Public record. Not legal advice.