Pamela Walker v. Suzanne Scopel and Justin Scopel, 14-14-00411-CV

On Jan. 5, 2012 Justin Scopel rear‑ended Pamela Walker; Scopel stipulated liability and trial proceeded on damages only (past/future physical pain and mental anguish, past/future physical impairment).
Walker sought emergency care, was diagnosed with lumbar and cervical strain, completed physical therapy (~13 visits), later treated by a chiropractor (30+ visits) and an acupuncturist; treating providers and Walker’s husband testified to ongoing pain and functional limitation.
Defendant admitted three post‑accident photographs of Walker’s vehicle over Walker’s Rule 403 objection; defendant’s counsel argued minimal vehicle damage implied a low‑impact collision and therefore no injury.
The jury awarded zero damages on all damage questions; the trial court entered judgment that Walker take nothing. Walker appealed arguing (1) erroneous admission of the photographs under Tex. R. Evid. 403 and (2) the zero award was against the great weight and preponderance of undisputed evidence of injury.
Appellant emphasized expert testimony (chiropractor and physical therapist) showing objective findings and causation; appellant argued defendant offered no expert to rebut causation and only minimal evidence (photos, an email, partial records) that went to degree not existence of injury.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Whether admission of vehicle photographs was reversible error under Tex. R. Evid. 403	Photographs had little probative value to pain/impairment (issues tried); their admission invited juror speculation and unfair prejudice and should have been excluded	Photos were relevant to impact severity and causation; admissible evidence for jury evaluation	Trial court erred in admitting the photos because their minimal probative value was substantially outweighed by danger of unfair prejudice/confusing the jury (per Appellant’s brief)
2. Whether jury could lawfully award zero damages when liability was stipulated and record contained undisputed evidence of some injury	With causation conceded and unimpeached treating‑provider testimony of objective findings, jury could not award zero damages as that verdict is against great weight and preponderance of the evidence	Jury is sole judge of credibilty and may disbelieve witnesses; photos and medical history could support a zero award	Appellant argues the zero award is against the great weight of evidence and requires reversal and new trial (per Appellant’s brief)

Browning‑Ferris, Inc. v. Reyna, 865 S.W.2d 925 (Tex. 1993) (conjecture and suspicion are not evidence)
Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Crye, 907 S.W.2d 497 (Tex. 1995) (expert opinions must be stated to a reasonable medical probability)
Insurance Co. of N. Am. v. Myers, 411 S.W.2d 710 (Tex. 1966) (expert causation must be grounded in reasonable probability)
Lopez v. Carrillo, 940 S.W.2d 232 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997) (discussing need for expert proof of causation in injury cases)
Lowery v. Berry, 269 S.W.2d 795 (Tex. 1954) (a jury may not lawfully award zero damages where injury is established)
Coates v. Whittington, 758 S.W.2d 749 (Tex. 1988) (eggshell‑plaintiff rule: defendant takes plaintiff as found)