Bed, Bath & Beyond, Inc., Petitioner v. Rafael Urista, Respondent

Summary

The Texas Supreme Court held that the inclusion of an unavoidable accident instruction in the jury charge was harmless error and therefore reversed the Court of Appeals’ judgment, remanding for further proceedings. The Court reasoned that Crown Life Insurance Co. v. Casteel does not apply to inferential rebuttal instructions and that the record showed the jury could have reached its verdict without the instruction. Justice MEDINA dissented, arguing the instruction likely caused the verdict. Justice BRISTER concurred, emphasizing that accidents can occur without negligence and the instruction was proper.