Irma Amalia Salazar Saenz and Irma G. Saenz v. Kaila Marie Coronado ( 2014 )

NUMBER 13-13-00473-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
IRMA AMALIA SALAZAR SAENZ
AND IRMA G. SAENZ, Appellants,
v.
KAILA MARIE CORONADO, Appellee.
On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1
of Cameron County, Texas.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Garza and Longoria
Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Valdez
Appellants, Irma Amalia Salazar-Saenz and Irma G. Saenz, sued appellee, Kaila
Marie Coronado, alleging negligence arising out of a motor vehicle accident in December
2011. After a trial, the jury awarded damages to Salazar-Saenz, and awarded nothing to
Saenz. By one issue, appellants challenge the trial court’s judgment alleging that it
erroneously limited cross-examination of Coronado’s expert witness. We affirm.
I. DISCUSSION
By their sole issue, appellants assert that the trial court erred by denying them the
opportunity to cross-examine Coronado’s expert witness regarding his reliance upon data
compiled by the “Insurance Institute for Highway Safety” in order to formulate his opinions.
According to the parties, at trial, the trial court had indicated that he would not allow any
evidence regarding insurance in the record. Thus, according to appellants they were
precluded from providing evidence which showed that Coronado’s expert was biased.
We review the trial court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence for an abuse of
discretion. Tex. Dep’t of Transp. v. Able, 35 S.W.3d 608, 617 (Tex. 2000); City of
Brownsville v. Alvarado, 897 S.W.2d 750, 753 (Tex. 1995). An abuse of discretion occurs
when the trial court acts without regard to any guiding rules or principles. Alvarado, 897
S.W.2d at 754. If there is error in the admission or exclusion of evidence, we examine
the entire record to assess the harm caused by the error. See Cortez v. HCCI–San
Antonio, Inc., 131 S.W.3d 113, 119 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2004), aff’d, 159 S.W.3d 87
(Tex. 2005). We reverse based on the erroneous admission or exclusion of evidence
only if the appellant shows error that was calculated to cause and probably did cause the
rendition of an improper judgment. TEX. R. APP. P. 44.1(a)(1); Cortez, 131 S.W.3d at 119;
Alvarado, 897 S.W.2d at 753; Vela v. Wagner & Brown, Ltd., 203 S.W.3d 37, 52 (Tex.
App.—San Antonio 2006, no pet.). Accordingly, the appellant must demonstrate that the
excluded evidence was both controlling on a material issue and not cumulative of other
evidence. Able, 35 S.W.3d at 617; Williams Distrib. Co. v. Franklin, 898 S.W.2d 816, 817
(Tex. 1995). Erroneous evidentiary rulings are usually not harmful unless the case as a
whole turns on the particular evidence in question. Alvarado, 897 S.W.2d at 753–54;
2
Sommers v. Concepcin, 20 S.W.3d 27, 41 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, pet.
denied).
Although appellants have alleged that the trial court committed error, they have not
explained how this alleged error caused harm.1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 44.1(a)(1); Cortez,
131 S.W.3d at 119 (explaining that on appeal the appellant has the burden of showing
how he or she was harmed by the exclusion of evidence); Alvarado, 897 S.W.2d at 753–
54 (“A successful challenge to evidentiary rulings usually requires the complaining party
to show that the judgment turns on the particular evidence excluded or admitted. We
determine whether the case turns on the evidence excluded by reviewing the entire
record.”) (internal citations omitted); Vela, 203 S.W.3d at 52. Moreover, appellants have
not provided this Court with a full record of the proceedings below. 2 See Cortez, 131
S.W.3d at 119. Thus, even assuming that the trial court erred, we are unable to examine
the whole record to determine if the erroneous exclusion harmed appellants and to
determine whether the excluded evidence was cumulative. See id. We overrule
appellants’ sole issue because they have not met their appellate burden of showing that
they were harmed by the alleged erroneous exclusion of evidence. Able, 35 S.W.3d at
617; Williams Distrib. Co., 898 S.W.2d at 817.
1 Appellants merely state, “Further, because as a damages witness, the exclusion of such relevant
evidence tending to show the witness’s bias probably led to the rendition of an improper verdict, or one that
was based on improper grounds.” That is the extent of appellants’ assertion that they suffered harm due
to the trial court’s error, if any.
2The reporter’s record provided by appellants includes: (1) “Volume 1,” which is the “Master Index”;
(2) “Volume 2,” which only includes “Arguments on Motions in Limine” consisting of counsels’ arguments
regarding whether appellants should be allowed to present evidence that Coronado’s expert witness relied
on data compiled by the “Insurance Institute for Highway Safety”; and (3) “Volume 3,” which only includes
the “PLAINTIFF'S OFFER OF PROOF” consisting of a voir dire of Coronado’s expert witness, Joseph M.
Cormier.
3
II. CONCLUSION
We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
/s/ Rogelio Valdez_
ROGELIO VALDEZ
Chief Justice
Delivered and filed the
30th day of October, 2014.
4