Court Opinion

ID: 9829420
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 19:18:09.079233+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:01.089065
License: Public Domain

On Appellants’ Motion for Rehearing.
We still think that the angle cock and its condition was not of and by itself alone the proximate cause of the appellee’s injury, and that appellee could not legally predicate a recovery on that ground alone. The error) though, we formerly concluded should not operate to reverse the judgment, in view of rule 62a (149 S. W. x). In point of principle and merit the judgment should be affirmed, but, under the authority of the case of Weisner v. Ry. Co. (Tex. Com. App.) 207 S. W. 904, *272which we are required to follow, the judgment must be reversed, and the cause remanded for another trial, for the error mentioned. From the Weisner Case, supra, it appears that rule 62a does not apply to an erroneous instruction where the case is submitted to the jury on a general charge. In that case the Court of Appeals held that a charge given was erroneous, but was entirely irrelevant to any issue that was raised by either the pleading or the evidence, and consequently a harmless error not injuring the rights of the appellant and not authorizing the reversal of the judgment under rule 62a. The Commission of Appeals reversed that ruling of the Court of Appeals solely upon .the gi’ound that the giving of an erroneous charge—
“is calculated to prejudice the plaintiffs and cause the jury to render an improper verdict. It is never possible in such case for any appellate court, where the case is submitted under a general charge, to say upon what ground the jury acted.”
The Supreme Court not only approved the judgment in the particular case recommended by the Commission of Appeals, but further decided:
“The case is correctly remanded upon the ground stated by the Commission in its opinion.”
Therefore the ruling has ‘approval of the Supreme Court. The opinion can be construed in one way only, which is that of holding that the giving of an erroneous instruction, even though it relates to no issue raised either by the pleading or the evidence, “is calculated to prejudice (the plaintiff) and cause the jury to render an improper verdict.” Then, under that holding, the giving of an erroneous charge in any case where the ease is submitted to the jury on a general charge requires reversal on the ground that such- error is conclusively “presumed,” as a niatter of law,' to reasonably and probably cause the rendition by the jury of an improper verdict, and rule 62a would not operate to prevent a reversal. Upon that case as the authority for so doing, we are now reversing and remanding this case upon the appellants’ application for rehearing.