Court Opinion

ID: 9828222
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:13:12.938249+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:46.050157
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
In its motion for rehearing appellant complains, among other things, of our statement that its counsel admitted in oral argument that only one question was involved in the appeal. Such was the express admission of counsel in appellant’s closing argument, but, since his co-counsel did discuss other issues raised in its brief, we will, in overruling them, here discuss them briefly.
In its third and fourth propositions appellant contends that there was no evidence authorizing the submission to the jury of special issue No. 2; that is, as to what was the average daily wage or salary of an employee of the same class as appellee, working substantially the» whole of the year next preceding the injury. No complaint is made of the amount found, but merely that there was no evidence authorizing the submission of the issue. We overrule this assignment. Three witnesses testified that all during the year preceding appellee’s injury they had had gravel, sand, cotton seed, and other commodities hauled over the same roads in trucks, for which they had paid on a quantitative basis. One witness testified, “I had men hauling gravel on these roads most of the time.” Clearly such testimony was sufficient to authorize the submission of the issue complained of.
Appellant’s fifth and sixth propositions complain of the submission to the jury of special issues relating to the extent of ap-pellee’s incapacity to work, and how long same would continue, on the ground that there was no competent evidence fixing with-any degree of certainty either the extent of his incapacity or how long it would continue, and that the jury, under the evidence before them, could only surmise how long total incapacity would continue, when partial incapacity would begin, and how long and to what extent that would continue, there is no merit in this. The jury had the appellee before them, with his detailed testimony as to the character, extent, and effect upon his body of the injuries sustained. They had also X-ray pictures of his injuries and the testimony of two physicians. His condition from the date of his injury up to the date of the trial was established — total incapacity. As to the future, of course, neither appellee nor the physicians could testify with certainty as to what his condition would be. At best, their testimony, even as experts, could be only their opinion as to that. But with the physical facts before them, aided by the testimony of the physicians, and their own experience as reasonable and intelligent men, they were qualified to arrive at competent conclusions as to both the extent and length of time ap-pellee’s' incapacity would likely continue, and their finding thereon is supported by sufficient evidence. Texas Employers’ Ins. Ass’n v. Shilling (Tex. Com. App.) 289 S. W. 998, Oil Men’s Reciprocal Ass’n v. Harris (Tex. Civ. App.) 293 S. W. 580; Petroleum Casualty Co. v. Seale (Tex. Civ. App.) 4 S.W.(2d) 90.
Appellant’s motion is therefore overruled.
. Overruled.