Ford Motor Company v. Tiburcio Ledesma, Jr.
This text of Ford Motor Company v. Tiburcio Ledesma, Jr. (Ford Motor Company v. Tiburcio Ledesma, Jr.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-03-00634-CV
Ford Motor Company, Appellant
v.
Tiburcio Ledesma, Jr., Appellee
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BASTROP COUNTY, 335TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 23,425, HONORABLE TERRY L. FLENNIKEN, JUDGE PRESIDING
CONCURRING OPINION
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, No. 02-0557, 2004 Tex.
LEXIS 1429 (Tex. Dec. 31, 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 Ledesma’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.
Bob Pemberton, Justice
Before Chief Justice Law, Justices B. A. Smith and Pemberton
Filed: May 5, 2005
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Ford Motor Company v. Tiburcio Ledesma, Jr., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ford-motor-company-v-tiburcio-ledesma-jr-texapp-2005.