Martha H. Sanchez v. Hugo C. Balderrama and Merika H. Sanchez, 546 S.W.3d 230

Jan. 25, 2010 rear-end collision between Balderrama’s pickup (driven by Hugo Balderrama) and Merika Sanchez’s pickup carrying plaintiff Martha H. Sanchez and a toddler; jury found Balderrama 40% and Merika 60% negligent.
Martha sued both defendants for negligence claiming physical injuries (including a fractured left foot) and past physical pain and mental anguish.
At the scene hospital records noted a broken left foot and described pain as "mild;" hospital provided a boot and crutches. Plaintiff later treated with chiropractor Gregory Young for ~2 months; records showed improvement and normal range of motion at final visit.
Evidence and testimony conflicted about whether Martha was wearing a seat belt; plaintiff herself introduced the investigator’s report stating she was not wearing a seat belt.
Jury awarded Martha $1,000 for past physical pain and mental anguish; trial court denied new trial. Martha appealed, arguing (1) seat-belt evidence was improperly admitted and (2) the $1,000 award was against the great weight of the evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of seat-belt evidence	Nabors Romero requires expert proof that nonuse caused injuries; thus seat-belt evidence was inadmissible without expert causation testimony	Defendants: Martha opened the door by introducing investigator’s report and her own testimony; Romero allows relevance determinations by trial court and does not categorically require experts	Court: Martha waived complaint by introducing the evidence; even if error, harmless because jury was instructed not to reduce awards for Martha’s negligence and seat-belt use was excluded from proportionate-responsibility consideration; Issue overruled
Factual sufficiency of $1,000 past pain and mental anguish award	The award disregards the evidence of severe pain, broken foot, boot/crutches, and ongoing limitations; it shocks the conscience	Defendants: Evidence showed mild hospital pain notation, improvement under chiropractic care, inconsistent testimony, and plaintiff didn’t follow recommended specialty care; jury is sole judge of credibility	Court: Reviewed record for great weight; jury could disbelieve plaintiff’s severity claims given contradictions and medical evidence; award not so against great weight as to be clearly wrong or unjust; Issue overruled

Broders v. Heise, 924 S.W.2d 148 (Tex. 1996) (abuse of discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
Nabors Well Serv., Ltd. v. Romero, 456 S.W.3d 553 (Tex. 2015) (seat-belt evidence admissible if relevant to causation; expert testimony not always required)
Nissan Motor Co. v. Armstrong, 145 S.W.3d 131 (Tex. 2004) (harmless error and review of evidentiary rulings)
City of Brownsville v. Alvarado, 897 S.W.2d 750 (Tex. 1995) (reversible error requires showing judgment probably resulted from the error)
McInnes v. Yamaha Motor Corp., 673 S.W.2d 185 (Tex. 1984) (party cannot complain on appeal about evidence it introduced)
Dow Chem. Co. v. Francis, 46 S.W.3d 237 (Tex. 2001) (standard for factual sufficiency review when appellant bore burden)
Golden Eagle Archery, Inc. v. Jackson, 116 S.W.3d 757 (Tex. 2003) (jury is sole judge of witness credibility)
Parkway Co. v. Woodruff, 901 S.W.2d 434 (Tex. 1995) (mental anguish recoverable where physical injury proven)
City of Tyler v. Likes, 962 S.W.2d 489 (Tex. 1997) (mental anguish recoverable in negligence cases)