Diamond Offshore Servs. Ltd. v. Williams, 542 S.W.3d 539

Background

Willie David Williams, an offshore mechanic, sued Diamond under the Jones Act for back injuries, claiming total disability and seeking nearly $10 million in damages for lost earning capacity, pain and suffering, and related harms.
Diamond obtained surveillance footage filmed over two days (~30 minutes each day) showing Williams performing physical tasks (operating a mini-excavator, bending repeatedly, working on his truck); timestamps were visible and all footage was produced.
Prior testing (FCE) suggested Williams exaggerated symptoms; Diamond offered the surveillance to impeach credibility and as substantive evidence of physical ability. Williams admitted on record that he was the person in the video and performed the activities.
At a pretrial limine hearing the trial judge stated she had not watched the video and limited its use to impeachment only if Williams opened the door; at trial the judge repeatedly refused to admit the footage without ever viewing it.
Jury returned a verdict for Williams; the court of appeals affirmed. The Texas Supreme Court reviewed whether excluding the surveillance video without viewing it was an abuse of discretion and whether exclusion was harmful.

Issues

Issue	Williams' Argument	Diamond's Argument	Held
Whether a trial court must view video evidence before ruling on admissibility under Tex. R. Evid. 403	The judge's statement she had not watched the video does not prove she never viewed it later; presume regularity of proceedings.	Trial court discretion in evidentiary rulings allows reliance on counsel descriptions or prior rulings without viewing.	Trial courts should view video evidence when its contents are at issue; excluding without viewing (absent rare exceptions) is an abuse of discretion.
Whether the surveillance video was excludable under Tex. R. Evid. 403 (unfair prejudice, misleading, cumulative)	The video was misleading and prejudicial because it omitted rest, medication use, and pain, and was therefore cumulative of admissions that he could do the tasks briefly.	The video was highly probative on pain, ability, and credibility; not merely cumulative because video conveys demeanor/motion; omissions go to weight, not admissibility.	On independent review, the Court held the video's probative value was not substantially outweighed by prejudice or misleading effect and it should not have been excluded.
Whether excluding the video was harmful error requiring reversal	Exclusion did not change outcome; witnesses corroborated pain and disability; error (if any) was harmless.	The video was central to Diamond's defenses (malingering, work capacity, credibility) and could have substantially affected subjective damages and liability assessment.	Exclusion was harmful: the video was central to key defensive theories and likely affected the judgment; reversal and new trial required.
Authentication / foundation challenge to the video	The video lacked foundation and could be misleadingly edited or selective; authenticity contested.	Williams admitted he was the person on the video and performed the acts; all footage produced and videographer available.	Authentication was adequate: admission and available evidence established authenticity; disputes about omissions go to weight, not admissibility.

Key Cases Cited

Bannister v. Town of Noble, 812 F.2d 1265 (10th Cir. 1987) (trial judge should inspect film before ruling under Rule 403)
United States v. Loughry, 660 F.3d 965 (7th Cir. 2011) (court cannot fully assess Rule 403 without viewing videos)
United States v. Cunningham, 694 F.3d 372 (3d Cir. 2012) (abuse of discretion where court decided not to watch videos before admitting under Rule 403)
Tabieros v. Clark Equip. Co., 944 P.2d 1279 (Haw. 1997) (trial courts should view visual recordings before ruling on admissibility)
Brookshire Bros., Ltd. v. Aldridge, 438 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. 2014) (discussing evidentiary and credibility issues relevant to personal-injury evidence)