Peter Pjetrovic v. Home Depot, 411 S.W.3d 639

Pjetrovic sued Home Depot for damages from a dishwasher flood at his Texas home; hydraulic flood originated from the dishwasher’s hot-water supply line after installation by Home Depot’s plumber Hoffman.
The house is in Fannin County; a one-time flood damaged drywall, cabinets, trim, flooring, and caused odors affecting occupants; Metroplex Services paid $1,710.25 to pump out water.
Pjetrovic claimed DTPA violations, insurance-code provisions, common-law fraud, negligence, and contract breach; trial court limited damages to repair costs and property value, excluding other estimates.
Discovery and scheduling were protracted; Pjetrovic failed to designate expert witnesses by the scheduling order deadline, and multiple continuance requests were denied.
Pjetrovic’s first attorney withdrew; the court denied continuances and did not modify the scheduling order; Exhibit 1A was excluded; lay-cost testimony was excluded.
The trial court granted a directed verdict for Home Depot; this appeal followed seeking reversal on issues related to discovery, admissibility of Exhibit 1A, lay testimony on repair costs, and negligence evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether withdrawal of counsel and continuance denials were proper	Pjetrovic argues withdrawal prejudiced case and continuances were needed	Home Depot asserts no abuse; duty to avoid prejudice	No abuse; court acted within discretion
Whether the court abused modifying the scheduling order	Pjetrovic contends good cause existed to extend deadlines	Home Depot notes lack of good cause and foreseeability of prejudice	No abuse; scheduling priorities respected
Whether Exhibit 1A was admissible as a business record	Exhibit 1A should be admitted as Home Depot business record	Exhibit 1A lacked proper business-record foundation	Exhibit 1A not admitted
Whether lay testimony on repair costs was admissible	Owner’s lay testimony supported repair cost estimates	Costs require expert basis given technical repairs	Not admissible; lay testimony on cost excluded
Whether the directed verdict for Home Depot was proper on negligence	Evidence showed possible negligence by Hoffman	No evidence of negligent conduct by Hoffman linked to leak	Directed verdict proper; insufficient evidence of Hoffman’s negligence

Villegas v. Carter, 711 S.W.2d 624 (Tex. 1986) (trial court must ensure withdrawal does not prejudice client)
McAleer v. McAleer, 394 S.W.3d 613 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2012) (withdrawal must not cause foreseeable prejudice to client)
Pilgrim’s Pride Corp. v. Smoak, 134 S.W.3d 880 (Tex. 2004) (good cause or lack of unfair prejudice needed for expert extensions)
Wortham Bros., Inc. v. Haffner, 347 S.W.3d 356 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2011) (owner’s rule does not cover technical repair costs)
Banda v. Garcia, 955 S.W.2d 270 (Tex. 1997) (waiver when objection is necessary to preserve point)