We conclude that this testimony constituted at least a scintilla of evidence that raised a fact question for the jury and did not establish her negligence as a matter of law. See, e.g., Douglas, 599 S.W.3d at 109-110 (directed verdict not proper because there was some evidence "that Douglas did what a person of ordinary prudence would have done under the same or similar circumstances"); see also Schwartz v. Forest Pharm., Inc., 127 S.W.3d 118, 121-22 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, pet. denied) (driver's testimony that her foot accidently slipped off of the brake after she dropped a cold drink in her lap was factually sufficient to support finding that driver was not negligent).

To complain on appeal that the time limit was arbitrary or unreasonable, it was incumbent upon Rhone to object on this basis when the trial court imposed the time limit. SeeState v. Reina , 218 S.W.3d 247, 254 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2007, no pet.) ; Schwartz v. Forest Pharms., Inc. , 127 S.W.3d 118, 126–27 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, pet. denied). To complain on appeal that subsequent events at the hearing made the trial court's time limit arbitrary or unreasonable, Rhone was required to object when events at the hearing allegedly made the time limit arbitrary or unreasonable.

A trial court's ruling on a motion in limine is not a ruling that admits or excludes evidence; rather, it is a tentative ruling that requires a party to obtain the trial court's permission outside the jury's presence before admitting evidence subject to the limine ruling. Schwartz v. Forest Pharm., Inc., 127 S.W.3d 118, 124 n.1 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, pet. denied); Westview Drive Invs., LLC v. Landmark Am. Ins. Co., 522 S.W.3d 583, 600 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, pet. denied).

In any event, because Father failed to object when the complained-of exhibits' content was introduced through testimony, he has forfeited his complaint regarding the exhibits' admission. "[A]ny error in admitting evidence is cured where the same evidence comes in elsewhere without objection." Schwartz v. Forest Pharms., Inc., 127 S.W.3d 118, 124 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, pet. denied); accord Holliday v. Gray, No. 05-18-01146-CV, 2020 WL 1969503, at *2 (Tex. App.-Dallas Apr. 24, 2020, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (citing Combs v. Gent, 181 S.W.3d 378, 385 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2005, no pet.)). Thus, a party forfeits a complaint regarding the admission of an exhibit when testimony regarding the exhibit's contents is made without objection.

"[A]ny error in admitting evidence is cured where the same evidence comes in elsewhere without objection." Schwartz v. Forest Pharms., Inc., 127 S.W.3d 118, 124 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, pet. denied); accord Holliday v. Gray, No. 05-18-01146-CV, 2020 WL 1969503, at *2 (Tex. App.-Dallas Apr. 24, 2020, pet. denied) (mem. op.)

For example, Jessica did not object to the trial court's initial limitation on time for trial, request additional time to call more witnesses after the Department's case ran long, or object to the trial court's instructions that the parties keep their questioning brief. See State v. Reina, 218 S.W.3d 247, 254 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2007, no pet.) (noting that State did not object to trial court allocating only one additional hour to present its case); Schwartz v. Forest Pharm., Inc., 127 S.W.3d 118, 126-27 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, pet. denied) (concluding party failed to preserve error as to court's time limit because he failed to object when limit was first imposed). If Jessica had complaints about the trial court's allocation of time, "it was incumbent upon [the complaining party] to make its objection known at the time."

In her second issue, Brockie contends the trial court erred imposing time limits on the presentation of the case. Failure to object to time limits imposed by a trial court waives any error. Schwartz v. Forest Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 127 S.W.3d 118, 126-27 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, pet. denied). The trial court allotted each side fifteen minutes to present their case with respect to the petition in intervention.

Id. Moreover, any error in admitting evidence is cured where the same evidence comes in elsewhere without objection. Schwartz v. Forest Pharm., Inc., 127 S.W.3d 118, 124 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, pet. denied). At trial, Gent cross-examined Michael Bedford, an accountant Combs hired to work for the trust.

In reviewing factual sufficiency, we consider and weigh all of the evidence; we will set aside the verdict only if the evidence is so weak or the finding so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence that it is clearly wrong and unjust. Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175, 176 (Tex. 1986); Schwartz v. Forest Pharms., Inc., 127 S.W.3d 118, 121 (Tex.App. 2003, pet. denied). We will not substitute our opinion for that of the trier of fact.

(to preserve complaint to trial time limits, specific objection is required when court imposed the limit); State v. Reina, 218 S.W.3d 247, 254 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2007, no pet.) (state waived error by failing to object to time limitations at the time the court imposed them); Schwartz v. Forest Pharms., Inc., 127 S.W.3d 118, 126-27 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, pet. denied) (concluding that party failed to preserve error as to court’s time limit because he failed to object when he first knew of the limitation); see also Anastasi v. McHorse, No. 03-23-00274-CV, 2024 WL 968887, at *10 (Tex. App.—Austin Mar. 7, 2024, no pet.) (holding that mother failed to preserve complaint about the trial court’s time limits because she failed to make a timely objection at the "earliest possible opportunity" to the time limits set by the trial court). The majority’s statement that Mother timely asserted her due process objection to the trial court’s time limitations is inconsistent with binding authority from our court and persuasive authority from other appellate courts.