Russell Equestrian Center v. Miller
The case arose from a collision between the plaintiff's vehicle and two horses that escaped from an equestrian center. Attorneys for Donato, Brown & Pool argued that the trial court erred in admitting the testimony of the plaintiff's expert and that the evidence at trial was legally insufficient to support the jury's finding of gross negligence.
The appellate court ruled that the expert's testimony was speculative and conclusory, and should have been excluded in its entirety. The expert never stated that the horses escaped because of the alleged inadequacies. Also, the evidence was legally sufficient as to negligence claim and legally insufficient as to gross negligence claim.