Court Opinion

ID: 9833646
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:55:07.047089+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:05.587602
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
Appellants say that they rest their contention that the jury was guilty of misconduct in considering the legal effect of its “answer to Special Issue No. 33, wherein the jury said: ‘Total amount of expenses incurred' — $1,464.50 as we find negligence on both sides we, the jury, find that the amount of $732.25 or 50% of the expenses incurred a reasonable compensation.’ In addition to this there is the testimony of the juror, Fagg, which was set forth in the original brief, but certainly this is conclusive evidence that the jury did not consider the legal effect of their answers.”
The juror Fagg testified:
“Well, we figured that half of the expense would be a reasonable amount and that is what we put down there.
“Q. Did you feel, Mr. Fagg, in deliberating on this case that both the Plaintiffs and the Defendant were to blame for this accident? A. Yes, sir.
“Q. Well, feeling as you did that both parties were to blame, is that the reason why you arrived at this particular sum of $732.25 and recited in here that the total bills were $1,464.50? A. Yes, sir.
“Q. Mr. Fagg, in answering this special issue about the Seven Hundred Dollars, you have stated that that was half of the amount of the hospital bills, medical bills, etc. Now did you answer that question in the amount of one-half of those bills having in mind that the Plaintiff since he was only half to blame would be entitled to one-half of his expenses? A. Yes, sir.
“Q. Had you decided — that is, by this I mean had the jury decided — that they felt it was the fair thing to do? A. Yes, sir.
“Q. Had the jury decided that you would answer that issue in one-half of the actual amount so as to bring about the result of awarding the Plaintiff one-half of the damages because he was partly responsible for the accident? A. That’s right.
“Q. Now the jury, Mr. Fagg, did conclude as a matter of fact that both parties were at fault; is that right? A. That’s right.”
On cross examination the witness testified :
“Q. After you went back in the jury room I’ll ask you to state to the Court whether you took up each question in its order, one at a time and considered it separate and apart? A. Yes, sir.”
Appellants’ principal case on rehearing is Abrams v. Bradshaw, Tex.Civ.App., 2 S.W.2d 917, affirmed Tex.Com.App., 24 S.W.2d 372, 375. The jury in that case was convicted of misconduct on the following fact findings by Judge Critz, who wrote the opinion for the Commission of Appeals : “Considering only that part e>f the record that is undisputed in the case at bar, it is conclusively shown that from beginning to end, throughout their long deliberations, which extended over three days, the majority of the jury considered, discussed, and finally answered the several issues presented to them in the court’s charge with but one end in view, and that an attempt to accomplish a result, regardless of whether that result had been previously agreed on or not, and regardless of the evidence. It is further conclusively shown that, in considering and answering said issues, a majority of the jury did not consider and answer the issues separately as they found the facts, but they considered, and attempted to answer, all of said questions with reference to their relation to, and effect on, other questions, and especially is this true as to question No. 7, submitting the issue of whether the contributory negligence of the plaintiff was the proximate cause of the injury. It is conclusively shown that at least several jurors were induced to agree to the verdict .by the discussions with reference to the effect of the answers, and what they were told the effect would be, whén they otherwise would not have done so; and here it will be remarked that this discussion even went to the extent of one of the jurors telling the jury about another parallel case.” Such are not the facts of *161the case at bar. Mr. Fagg- testified, we “took up each question in its order, one at a time and considered it separate and apart.” It thus appears that the jury gave a fair consideration to each question and answered it on the weight and preponderance of the evidence, without relation to the effect of such answer on the other questions. The background of the jury’s verdict in the case at bar clearly distinguishes it from Bradshaw v. Abrams, supra.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.