Court Opinion

ID: 9831461
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:07:25.408836+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:34.992785
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
We cannot assent to the appellees’ contention that the error in the court’s charge was invited by appellant. The error lies in the fact that a general charge was given in a case which was submitted upon special issues. This is an error in procedure and requires a reversal. Railway Co. v. Harrington (Tex. Com. App.) 235 S. W. 188, and authorities cited. The error was specifically called to the attention of the trial judge by proper objections duly filed, and, when the objections were overruled, such action was duly excepted to, and the proceeding is correctly reflected by a sufficient bill of exceptions. This fixed the appellant’s status, with reference to the error and its presentation in this court. Patton v. Dallas Gas Co., 108 Tex. 321, 192 S. W. 1060.
[11,12] The appellant further objected because, by the general charge, the court “places a greater burden upon the defendant than the law required in that it charges,” etc. And further, that the “effect of the general charge was to indicate to them [the jury] the result of their verdict from the answers they may make to said special issues.” These objections go to the substance of the general charge and point out errors of law. Appel-lee concedes that there is error in giving a general charge in a case submitted upon special issues but insists that appellant invited the error by requesting special charges, which, it appears, were intended to correct the specific errors of law in the several paragraphs of the general charge. According to the record, the special charges were not presented to the trial judge until after the objections to the general charge had been overruled and such action duly excepted to.
[13] A party does not invite an error by filing objections to it. It is not insisted that appellant waived the error in practice by submitting special charges curing defects of law in the charge as given, and such insistence, if made, should not be sustained. Patton v. Dallas Gas Co., supra. By overruling the objections, the trial judge indicated his' determination to give a general charge in connection with special issues. Just why the appellant’s counsel should undertake to correct errors of law in a charge improperly given as a matter of practice, we are unable to explain unless it be that, when they saw that the trial judge was determined to do wrong, they wanted him to do it right. In other words, if the court must fall they wanted him to fall according to law and to land right side up; or it may be that they acted under the rule that an injured party should use ordinary care to prevent further injury. In either event their diligence is commendable, and they have not impaired the appellant’s right to insist upon the error in this court. A., T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Pickens (Tex. Civ. App.) 118 S. W. 1133.
The motion is overruled.