Opinion ID: 1780457
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Proper exercise of appellate court review.

Text: The court below clearly sustained Caterpillar's contentions that the jury's failure to find contributory negligence was against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence. 720 S.W.2d at 826-7. However, it is suggested that there is language in the opinion of the court of appeals indicating that it improperly found Cropper was contributorily negligent and thereby effectively foreclosed the jury's consideration of that issue on remand. The language of the opinion indicating this purported finding is as follows: A jury will have to determine, of course, the degree to which this conduct on Cropper's part contributed to cause the accident. Such a determination has not been made because that issue was contingent upon the jury's affirmative answer to the contributory negligence issue. 720 S.W.2d at 827. Cropper argues that this language establishes that the court of appeals either conclusively determined the fact of Cropper's contributory negligence, or held that Cropper was contributorily negligent as a matter of law. We do not agree with Cropper's interpretation of the court of appeals' disposition of the case. Viewing the opinion of the court of appeals as a whole, its language in context, and its judgment that the cause should be remanded for trial, it appears that the holding of that court is that the non-finding of the jury is against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence. Tippett v. Brannon, 493 S.W.2d 511 (Tex.1973). To the extent that the above quoted language could be viewed as settling the issue of Cropper's contributory negligence, we disapprove that language. Cropper also argues that we should reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and remand to that court, because it failed to comply with the dictates of Pool v. Ford Motor Company . In Pool, we held that a court of appeals should detail the evidence relevant to the issue in consideration and clearly state why the jury's finding... is so against the great weight and preponderance as to be manifestly unjust. 715 S.W.2d at 629. Further, we stated that the court of appeals' opinion should state in what regard the contrary evidence greatly outweighs the evidence in support of the verdict. Id. In his motion for rehearing, Cropper brought to the attention of the court of appeals certain testimony and evidence that was not referred to by the court in its opinion and which somewhat contradicted the version of the facts recited by the court in its opinion. Cf. Garza v. Alviar, 395 S.W.2d 821, 823 (Tex.1965). Further, the evidence specifically referred to in Cropper's motion lent substantial support to the jury's verdict. Cropper has thus preserved his complaint that the court of appeals' opinion does not comply with the guidelines established by this court in Pool v. Ford Motor Company . We sustain this point of error. The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed and the cause is remanded to that court for further consideration in light of this opinion. ROBERTSON, J., dissents in an opinion joined by RAY and MAUZY, JJ.