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

Summary

The Texas Supreme Court held that the trial court's inclusion of an unavoidable accident instruction was harmless error, reversing the Court of Appeals judgment and remanding for consideration of the remaining issues. The Court declined to extend the presumption of harmful error from Crown Life v. Casteel to such inferential rebuttal instructions. Justice MEDINA dissented, arguing the instruction likely caused the verdict, while Justice BRISTER concurred, emphasizing the instruction's harmlessness.