JLG Trucking, LLC v. Garza
No. 13-0978
Case Summary written by Jack Fulgham, Staff Member.
JUSTICE LEHRMANN delivered the opinion of the Court.
On July 16, 2008, Lauren Garza was in an automobile collision with an 18-wheeler driven by a JLG Trucking employee. Garza neglected to go to the hospital on the date of the accident, but five days later visited an orthopedic surgeon complaining of back and neck pain. The orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Guillermo Pechero, ordered an x-ray that showed “some straightening of the lordotic curve,” and prescribed Garza physical therapy that lasted about eleven weeks. On October 9, 2008, shortly after completing her physical therapy assignment, Garza was involved in another automobile accident. Garza was taken to the hospital in an ambulance, and on October 31, 2008, she paid another visit to Dr. Pechero. Dr. Pechero ordered an MRI and discovered that Garza had two herniated discs in her neck. After failed attempts to treat the injury without surgery, Garza underwent spinal fusion surgery in January 2012.
Garza sued JLG, alleging that negligence on the part of the JLG driver in the first accident proximately caused her neck injuries. Garza sought recovery of “past and future medical expenses, loss of earning capacity, physical pain, mental anguish, physical impairment, and disfigurement.” Dr. Pechero provided expert testimony on behalf of Garza, testifying that first accident involving the JLG driver caused Mrs. Garza’s neck injuries and subsequent surgery. Dr. Bruce Berberian, a neuroradiologist, provided expert witness testimony on behalf of JLG that Garza’s injuries were degenerative and not trauma-related. The trial court awarded Garza’s pretrial motion to exclude evidence of the second accident on a relevance theory, citing concerns that the evidence might prejudice or confuse the jury. JLG objected to the exclusion ruling, offering evidence of proof of the second accident, but the court maintained its ruling. The jury found for Garza and awarded her $1,166,264,48 in damages. JLG appealed the verdict, arguing that the exclusion of evidence of the second accident amounted to harmful error, but the Fourth Court of Appeals of Texas affirmed the trial court’s holding. The appellate court held that there was no abuse of discretion by the trial court because “expert testimony would be required to establish any . . . causal link between the second collision and Garza’s injuries.”
Issue: Did the trial court abuse its discretion by excluding evidence of the second accident because it was irrelevant?
The Supreme Court of Texas relied on the Texas Rules of Evidence in finding that the trial court did abuse its discretion, and that the evidence of the second accident was relevant to the facts. Relevant evidence is any “evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” TEX. R. EVID. 401. The Court also pointed to the fact that in a personal injury case the plaintiff has the burden of proving that the defendant’s conduct caused the plaintiff’s injuries, and evidence related to causation is relevant. The Court held that expert testimony that the second accident was an alternative cause to Garza’s injuries should not have been excluded.
The Court was not persuaded by Garza’s reliance on Farmers Texas County Mutual Insurance Co. v. Pagan. In that case, plaintiff alleged that a 2008 car accident caused neck and shoulder injuries, and excluded evidence of a 2009 “horse incident” in which the plaintiff fell off of a horse. The appellate court held that the evidence was properly excluded, because the injuries were minor and unrelated to the shoulder and neck injuries alleged in the complaint. The Court found that in the present case, the evidence presented by JLG had “a connection between the proposed alternative cause and the plaintiff’s injuries” unlike in Pagan. The Court noted that the excluded evidence also compromised JLG’s ability to cross-examine and probe Dr. Pechero’s conclusions about the causation of Garza’s injuries.
The Court further held that the court of appeals improperly shifted the burden of proof to the defendant by conflating the concepts of relevance and evidentiary sufficiency. The Court criticized the court of appeals reliance on Guevara v. Ferrer. Guevara, like this case, was related to injuries sustained in a car accident. In Guevara, the Court applied the rule that “expert testimony is necessary to establish causation as to medical conditions outside the common knowledge and experience of jurors”, but did not intend its holding to mean that a lack of expert testimony rendered evidence irrelevant or otherwise admissible.
The Court found no issue with the fact that JLG’s claims that Garza’s injuries were on the one hand caused by degeneration, and on the other caused by the second accident were conflicting. As long as both claims had a reasonable basis in fact and law, the fact that they were conflicting did not matter. The Court further emphasized that the burden of proof was on Garza to prove causation, and that part of that burden was to “exclude with reasonable certainty other plausible causes of her injuries supported by the record.”
The Court concluded that the trial court’s exclusion of the evidence of the second accident probably caused the rendition of an improper judgment, reversed the court of appeals’ ruling, and remanded the case to the trial court.