Court of Appeals of Texas, Twelfth District, Tyler
from the 96th District Court of Tarrant County, Texas (Tr.
Ct. No. 096-263952-13)
consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.
"Janet" Molina appeals from a take nothing judgment
in her lawsuit against Hurricane Harbor, L.P. for negligence.
In two issues, Janet challenges the admission of certain
evidence and the sufficiency of the evidence. We affirm.
sued Hurricane Harbor for negligence arising out of injuries
she sustained while on the "Mega Wedgie, " a water
slide located at Hurricane Harbor's water park. At trial,
Janet testified that she and her husband, Carlos, received an
inner tube from the attendant at the bottom of the slide.
Janet testified that, after being dispatched onto the slide,
she felt the tube "missing air" and beginning to
flip. She was ejected from the tube, her head and shoulder
struck the slide, and she lost consciousness.
jury found Janet sixty percent negligent and Hurricane Harbor
forty percent negligent. The jury did not award any damages
to Janet. The trial court signed a take nothing judgment in
accordance with the jury's verdict. This appeal followed.
issue one, Janet challenges the trial court's exclusion
of evidence regarding similar accidents that occurred on the
review a trial court's exclusion of evidence under an
abuse of discretion standard. Caffe Ribs, Inc. v.
State, 487 S.W.3d 137, 142 (Tex. 2016). A trial court
abuses its discretion when it acts without regard for any
guiding rules. Id. The erroneous exclusion of
evidence is reversible only if it probably resulted in an
improper judgment. JLG Trucking v. Garza, 466 S.W.3d
157, 161 (Tex. 2015); Tex.R.App.P. 44.1(a)(1).
trial, Janet sought to admit a document, dated July 22, 2010,
that memorialized a telephone conversation between a park
employee and the Mega Wedgie's manufacturer, Scott
Getschel from Water Fun Products. The document states as
I called Scott and told him that we had been having a rash of
injuries at the Mega Wedgie due to either whiplash or guests
striking their heads on the slide. I verified that we were
using the correct tube (a figure 8 double tube), and that the
rider position was correct (sitting up, facing forward, chin
tucked, heavier rider in back). He mentioned a tube with a
backrest on it. I told him that we had gotten some tubes from
Zebec. He told me that that was the tube he was referring to.
I asked about rider position and he told me that the heavier
rider should be in the back.
Harbor objected that the exhibit was irrelevant, did not
involve substantially similar incidents, is more prejudicial
than probative, and lacked a ...