Court Opinion

ID: 9833732
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:58:34.96084+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:06.290720
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Among other questions presented by this motion, appellant questions the correctness of the statement in the opinion that “appellant does not question the sufficiency of the evidence to support these findings,” in the discussion of the assignment of error to the trial court’s action in -refusing appellant’s motion for an instructed verdict.
We were wrong in using the statement referred to, as the motion for an instructed verdict questions not only appellee’s right to recover as set forth in the argument under the assignment, but also questioned the sufficiency of the evidence to show any negligence on its part. The expression was used inadvertently by the writer, and our decision was not based upon the fact that no specific assignments were presented questioning the sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury’s findings on the primary negligence of appellant, as was done on the issue of contributory negligence.
We adhere to the opinion that the trial court committed no error in refusing the motion for an instructed verdict, and are of the opinion that the decision reached by us is not in conflict with the decision in the case of Stamford Oil Mill Company v. Barnes, discussed in the main opinion, nor do we think the decision in the case of Patton v. Dallas Gas Company, 108 Tex. 321, 192 S. W. 1060, cited by appellant in its motion for a new trial, should control here.
The expression complained of will be withdrawn, and the motion in other respects overruled.