Court Opinion

ID: 9645168
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 21:15:03.251392+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:54:06.447485
License: Public Domain

ON MOTIONS FOR REHEARING
Cactus had reiterated its contentions that it was entitled to judgment because Williams failed to obtain the necessary jury finding that an employee of Cactus made the connection. The inferences are that, under Rule 279, Williams waived his right to recovery by not requesting that specific jury issue with the consequence that, under Rule 434, a take-nothing judgment should have been rendered rather than the remand ordered.
The uncertainty of the inquiry posed by special issue no. 1 dictated that the cause be remanded. If the issue assumed the controverted fact that a Cactus employee made the connection, it was an error precluding proper ascertainment of an essential fact, and the remand resulted in the interest of justice. London Terrace, Inc. v. McAlister, 142 Tex. 608, 180 S.W.2d 619
(1944); Scott v. Liebman, 404 S.W.2d 288 (Tex. 1966). If the issue did not assume the disputed fact, the jury's answer thereto was ambiguous, and the ambiguity required the remand. Northern Texas Traction Co. v. Armour Co., 116 Tex. 176,288 S.W. 145 (1926).
In the event of another trial, attention is directed to the Supreme Court's recent decision in Farley v. M M Cattle Company, 18 Tex.Sup.Ct.J. 398 (July 9, 1975), restricting the defense of Volenti non fit injuria or, as generally known, voluntary assumption of risk, in negligence actions.
The motions for rehearing filed by Williams and Cactus are overruled.