In General motors Corp. v. Sanchez, 997 S.W.2d 584, 588 (Tex. 1999), appellant argued that, as a matter of law, the plaintiffs' expert testimony of a safer alternative design was inadequate because: "(1) the design was not proved safer by testing; (2) the design was not published and therefore not subjected to peer review; (3) G.M.'s statistical evidence proved that other manufacturers, whose designs incorporated some of the expert's suggestions, had the same accident rate as G.M." Sanchez, 997 S.W.2d at 590. The court noted that these arguments went "to the reliability and therefore the admissibility of expert evidence rather than the legal sufficiency of the evidence of a product defect." Id. Because G.M. did not object to the reliability or admissibility of the expert testimony of a safer alternative design at trial, the court did not allow a challenge on appeal to the reliability of the evidence; however, the court did review the sufficiency of the evidence. See Sanchez, 997 S.W.2d at 591-92. The Court found the expert testimony in Sanchez was more than a mere "bald assertion." 997 S.W.2d at 591. The expert in Sanchez described the current operation of the alternative vehicle transmission. See Sanchez, 997 S.W.2d at 588-89. The expert performed an experiment with the subject vehicle in which he moved the gear selector to a position between Reverse and Park, called hydraulic neutral. See Sanchez, 997 S.W.2d at 589. In this experiment, he disturbed the gear linkage by slapping the steering wheel and revving the engine. In each of these instances, and even when he took no action, the gear shift slipped into reverse, as it had when it injured the plaintiff. See id. The expert described factors that contributed to the tendency for the gear shift to migrate toward Reverse, rather than to Park, and based on these factors, the expert offered four alternative designs that would eliminating the tendency of the gear shift to migrate toward Reverse. See Sanchez, 997 S.W.2d at 589-90. The expert concluded that these alternatives were a "99% solution" to the problem of inadvertent mis-shift from the intermediate position of hydraulic neutral to Reverse. See id. The court observed that plaintiffs did not have to build and test an automobile transmission to prove the safer alternative design; they only had to prove this safer alternative was capable of being developed. See Sanchez, 997 S.W.2d at 592. The court quoted the RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF TORTS: PRODUCTS LIABILITY 2 cmt. f (1998): " Qualified expert testimony on the issue suffices, even though the expert has produced no prototype, if it reasonably supports the conclusion that a reasonable alternative design could have been practically adopted at the time of sale." Sanchez, 997 S.W.2d at 592. The court concluded that the expert's testimony constituted more than a scintilla and was legally sufficient to support the jury's verdict. See id.