about prior falls or near falls, if any, at the site where the fall took place. A jury would have been able to hear testimony about complaints, if any, about the site where the fall took place. From this evidence, a jury would have been able to form its own conclusion about whether the walkway posed an unreasonable risk of harm. See Honeycutt, 24 S.W.3d at 361 (concluding jury did not need an expert’s opinion in determining if the lack of a top railing was unreasonable when it could view photographs and draw its own conclusion). When a jury is just as competent as the expert to form an opinion about the ultimate fact issues, or when the expert’s testimony is within the jury’s common knowledge, we must uphold the trial court’s ruling excluding expert testimony. See id. at 360-61 (<HOLDING>). We, therefore, conclude the trial court did
holding trial court acted within its discretion in excluding expert testimony holding that trial court in lowspeed impact case acted within its discretion in admitting photographic evidence without expert testimony 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 the trial court had erred by excluding the expert testimony of a doctor holding that a district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the testimony of a witness that was not highly probative