Court Opinion

ID: 9774514
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 18:22:41.528733+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:09.357573
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
In their motion for rehearing, the Holl-ingsworths ask us to reconsider our holding that no common law duty to fence exists in this state. In regard to that contention, we remain convinced that, absent statutory requirement or the qualification stated in the opinion, the present law remains as stated by the McClelland Court, i.e., “no duty of restraint of the animal placed upon the owner by the laws of this state.” Clarendon Land, Investment & Agency Co. v. McClelland, 89 Tex. 483, 35 S.W. 474, 475 (1896).
The Hollingsworths also ask us to reconsider our holding that the evidence is not definitive whether or not a stock law was in effect at the time and place of the accident. We have carefully reviewed the record in the light of their request, and for the reasons set out in our original opinion, we remain convinced that, viewing the summary judgment evidence in the light most favorable to the non-movants, doubt remains whether a stock law was in effect at any relevant time and place. That doubt must be resolved in favor of the non-mov-ants. That being so, we must continue to hold that the Kings failed to negate the existence of a statutory duty to fence their horse.
Accordingly, the Hollingsworths’ motion for rehearing is overruled.