Court Opinion

ID: 9681926
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 08:01:30.632987+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:36.650747
License: Public Domain

STEPHENSON, Justice
(concurring).
I concur with the majority of this court that the trial court judgment should be affirmed, but disagree with several statements of law made in its opinion.
First, I feel further discussion of the Supreme Court opinion in this case is necessary. The Supreme Court opinion contains this statement:
“ * * * Our inquiry narrows, then, to whether Johnson’s personal or private affair of going to work was being ‘furthered’ by the deviated trip. Unless it was, the dual-purpose rule is not applicable to the facts in this case. This question was not raised or discussed in Janek [Janak] v. Texas Employers Insurance Association, 381 S.W.2d 176 (Tex.Sup.1964). We merely assumed in that case that the injured employee’s personal or private affair of going to work was being ‘furthered’ by the deviated travel. Upon further consideration, we are convinced that we should not have indulged the assumption.” (439 S.W.2d at p. 828.)
and:
“ * * * As used in the dual-purpose rule in the phrase ‘in furtherance of personal or private affairs of the employee,’ we think the word ‘furtherance’ connotes the conferring of a benefit on the employee by helping to forward or advance his personal or private affairs; and we do not think that travel by an employee to or from work over a deviated and less convenient route, undertaken only because directed by the employer, is in ‘furtherance’ of the employee’s personal or private affair of getting to or from work.” (Id.)
We held in our first opinion written in this case that plaintiff taking part in the car pool was his personal or private affair. We took judicial knowledge of the fact *212that plaintiff would save money in driving his car only every fourth day and he bene-fitted thereby. It was because of this car pool, and not that plaintiff was getting to and from work, that we held the “dual-purpose rule” was applicable to this case. The Supreme Court opinion makes no mention of the car pool as being either a personal affair or employer’s business. We therefore must assume that inasmuch as our first opinion turned this case solely upon a finding that the car pool was a personal affair, that the Supreme Court is now holding that if the employer directs its employee to get into a car pool, participation becomes the employer’s business. We must further assume that if the participation in the car pools furthered the employer’s business by helping get ice and water to the rig site and by giving the employer assurance that the ice and water would be available, then the fact that the employee would be benefitted by taking part in a car pool would not bring the case under the dual-purpose rule. Accepting this as the law of this state, we must affirm the trial court.
I do not agree with the majority opinion that evidence that plaintiff had received $110.00 per month for some time before trial, and $80.00 per month at the time of trial, from the Veterans Administration was not admissible on the issue of “lump sum”. I do not agree that such evidence as to the issue of “lump sum” is prohibited under the collateral source rule. The majority opinion cites Traders & General Insurance Company v. Reed, supra, and Texas General Indemnity Company v. Hamilton, supra. Neither of those cases involved the question before us, as to the admissibility of such evidence where the plaintiff has sought a lump sum, offered evidence of hardship and financial problems and the issue is actually submitted to the jury. The general rule is that the financial condition of a plaintiff is material to the issue of lump sum, however that statement is usually made in a case in which plaintiff has offered the evidence in support of his claim for lump sum. The case mentioned in the majority opinion, General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corporation v. Coffman, supra, is apparently the only Texas case passing directly upon the question before us. As stated, the Waco Court of Civil Appeals reversed and remanded the case because of the trial court’s refusal to permit the defendant to show a collateral source of income on the lump sum issue. I think the evidence offered was clearly admissible, but I agree with the majority that under the circumstances of this case there was not reversible error under Rule 434.