goods and apparel. But unlike the value of personal property that may include such considerations as obsolescence, economic gain to the plaintiff, and even sentiment, food has such a basic quality and commonplace identity that a jury could, from its own experience and knowledge, assess its worth without the owner’s own testimony regarding its specific value. Juries may draw from their common knowledge and experiences when resolving fact questions. For example, in some circumstances when parties offer expert opinion testimony, a jury is not necessarily bound by that evidence and “can form its own opinion from other evidence and by use of its own experience and common knowledge.” Colorado Interstate Gas Co. v. Hunt Energy Corp., 47 S.W.3d 1, 14-15 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 2000, pet. denied) (<HOLDING>); see K-Mart Corp. v. Honeycutt, 24 S.W.3d 357,
holding that a trial court abused its discretion by excluding the testimony of an expert witness where the testimony would have been relevant to show that the defendant breached a duty of care holding that even in separate trial other crimes evidence would not have been admissible and identification testimony would have been admissible holding that jury could have relied upon other evidence besides plaintiffs expert witness testimony that would have supported its verdict holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing plaintiffs expert witness to testify when it also allowed defendants expert witness who disputed the methodology used by plaintiffs expert to testify holding that a defendant in a medical malpractice case who acquiesced to a general verdict form despite several theories of breach could not then challenge the verdict on the basis that jurors may have relied on a theory not supported by sufficient evidence