Court Opinion

ID: 9828256
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:14:27.681058+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:46.643248
License: Public Domain

On Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing.
In a motion for rehearing presented by appellant our attention has been called to an error apparent upon t.he face of the record which requires a further reformation of the judgment of the trial court.
In answer to special issue No. 5 the jury found that the difference between appellee’s wages before and after his injury during the 33 days of his partial incapacity was $1.50 per week. Under article 5246m of Vernon’s Sayles’ Civil Statutes he was entitled to recover 60 per cent, of this difference, which amounts to 90 cents per week. Tliirty-three days is 4=/7 weeks, and at 90 cents a week the compensation to which appellee is entitled is $4.24. The portion of the judgment which allows appellee $26.10 compensation for this period is clearly wrong, and must be reformed as above indicated.
The motion for rehearing has been given due consideration, and, except in the matter of this obvious error we think it should be refused; and it has been so ordered.