Court Opinion

ID: 9831013
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:42:23.108507+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:29.375830
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
There is one point in the motion for rehearing which we think calls for discussion. It is urged that the omission in the court’s main charge to require the jury to find negligence 'on the part of the defendant before authorizing a recovery for plaintiff was cured by the following special charge, given at the request of the defendant:
“You are instructed that the defendant herein would only be liable to the plaintiff for an unsafe and dangerous condition of the sidewalk in question if defendant, in. keeping said sidewalk or steps in repair, as it is required to do under its charter, failed to use ordinary care, as that term is defined in the court’s main charge, and, if you believe from the evidence that the defects, if any, in said sidewalk or steps were of such a nature as that one of ordinary prudence would not change said defects, then you will return your verdict for the defendant.”
The reference in this special charge to the use of ordinary care as defined in the main charge did not relate to the question of negligence in the original construction of the steps, or in failing to repair and remedy the defective and unsafe-condition, but only to constructive notice by the city officials of such defects or conditions. Therefore such special charge, as to the question under consideration, must be construed ns making no reference to the omission in the main charge. In view of the rule laid down by our Supreme Court and followed in Courts of Civil Appeals decisions, we are of the opinion that the giving of the special charge referred to did not cure the error in the main charge.
In Baker v. Ashe, 80 Tex. 356, 16 S. W. 37, Mr. Justice Gaines announced the rule that—
“A charge which instructs the jury to find for a plaintiff in the event they find certain facts proved by the evidence, and omits one of the facts essential to a recovery, is erroneous, and is not cured by a contradictory instruction given at the request of the other party which makes no direct reference to the erroneous charge. The erroneous charge ought to be withdrawn altogether, or corrected by a qualification referring directly to it.”
The same rule was enforced in Gonzales v. Adoue & Lobit, 94 Tex. 120, 58 S. W. 951. This court held substantially the same thing in City of Cleburne v. Mfg. Co., 39 Tex. Civ. App. 604, 88 S. W. 301. Numerous cases illustrative of the rule are collated in 4 Rose’s Notes on Texas Reports, p. 201. Therefore we feel constrained to overrule the contention that the error was 'cured.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.
Overruled.