Court Opinion

ID: 9831447
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:06:57.454576+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:34.907499
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
In support of its motion for rehearing, appellee has called our attention to the case of Crotsenburg v. Texas Employers’ Ins. Ass’n., Tex.Civ.App., 288 S.W. 1113 (writ refused), decided by this Court December 18, 1926, the contention being that our decision in the instant case is in conflict with our decision in the former case. We have very carefully reread the case as reported, and also re-examined the original record, with the result that we find no conflict in the two decisions. In the Crotsenburg case, the jury answered that the paralysis, from which he suffered and of which he complained, was not due to the injuries sustained by him as an employe, which determined the question of liability and settled the case against him. If the jury had answered contrarily, other corollary and dependent issues submitted would have been answered.
Counsel for the appellee are to be commended for their enterprise in efforts to bring before the court pertinent authorities, but we think they overestimated the value of the Crotsenburg case as an authority. After giving due consideration to the grounds set up for rehearing, the motion is overruled.