Roberta Benson v. Fred Chalk, Individually, and Steve Chalk, Individually and as Next Friend of Drucilla Henkhaus
01-16-00112-CV
| Tex. App. | Nov 21, 2017Background
- Collision on July 7, 2010 at Apple Tree Rd. and Wilcrest Dr.; Benson (Lexus) and Anders (Nissan) collided; passenger Drucilla Henkhaus later died. Chalks sued Benson for negligence and wrongful death; Anders was non-suited (deceased).
- Benson testified she saw a green light as she entered the intersection; Anders (deposition) said Wilcrest light was green and she swerved when Benson appeared.
- Chalks’ reconstruction expert (Yergin) conducted an out-of-court experiment and videoed traffic‑signal sequencing, concluding Apple Tree activation is triggered only when a vehicle stops or nearly stops at the sensor. Videos were admitted as demonstrative exhibits.
- Single independent eyewitness (Cindy Maddox) initially told officers and an adjuster Anders ran a red light; at deposition she recanted or said she could not recall. Portions of her statements in the police file and portions of her deposition were excluded at trial.
- Officers Hroch and Michon relied on Maddox’s earlier statements and included opinions in reports; the court excluded those portions and the officers’ deposition opinions as unreliable and/or hearsay-based. Jury found both drivers negligent (80% Benson, 20% Anders) and awarded damages to plaintiffs; Benson appealed evidentiary rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Benson) | Defendant's Argument (Chalks) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Maddox’s statements in HPD crash file | Maddox’s statements in the report are admissible (prior witness statement / present sense impression) | Statements in police file are hearsay within hearsay and not made under oath; exceptions don’t apply | Exclusion affirmed — hearsay within hearsay not admissible; present sense impression argument waived at trial |
| Use of Maddox’s prior inconsistent statements (deposition excerpts) | Prior inconsistent statements should be admitted for impeachment and as substantive evidence because jury saw her demeanor and statements were contemporaneous | Calling witness to impeach solely to get hearsay before jury is improper; high risk jury will use prior statements substantively | Exclusion affirmed — trial court properly excluded because proponent knew witness would testify unfavorably and impeachment risked misuse under Rule 403; prior inconsistent statements are not substantive evidence |
| Admissibility of officers’ causation opinions (Hroch, Michon) | Officers were qualified accident investigators and their opinions that Anders ran the red light were reliable and admissible | Officers’ opinions were based entirely on Maddox’s inadmissible statements and lacked independent reliable foundation | Exclusion affirmed — officers’ opinions unreliable as not based on their own perceptions or reliable methodology; lay opinion/admissibility requirements not satisfied |
| Admissibility of out‑of‑court experiment videos | Videos aren’t substantially similar to accident conditions (different time/month/lighting) and are prejudicial/confusing | Videos accurately depict signal timing and sequencing and were supported by expert testimony; timing matched municipal records | Admission affirmed (but harmless if erroneous) — court upheld admission as within trial court discretion and, in any event, videos were cumulative of expert testimony so any error harmless |
Key Cases Cited
- Bay Area Healthcare Grp., Ltd. v. McShane, 239 S.W.3d 231 (Tex. 2007) (trial court’s evidentiary rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Bowie Mem. Hosp. v. Wright, 79 S.W.3d 48 (Tex. 2002) (definition of abuse of discretion)
- Volkswagen of Am., Inc. v. Ramirez, 159 S.W.3d 897 (Tex. 2004) (proponent bears burden to show hearsay fits exception; harmless‑error principles)
- Hughes v. State, 4 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (party’s knowledge that its witness will testify unfavorably is a factor; Rule 403 balancing when impeachment risks placing inadmissible hearsay before jury)
- TXI Transp. Co. v. Hughes, 306 S.W.3d 230 (Tex. 2010) (expert testimony must rest on reliable foundation and methodology)
- Fort Worth & Denver Ry. Co. v. Williams, 375 S.W.2d 279 (Tex. 1964) (out‑of‑court experiments must be substantially similar to actual events to be admissible)