holding expert testimony of accident reconstruction concerning mark left on roadway, allegedly by truck’s driveshaft, went to credibility not reliability of expert’s theories
How later courts described this case
- holding expert testimony of accident reconstruction concerning mark left on roadway, allegedly by truck’s driveshaft, went to credibility not reliability of expert’s theories
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
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.