Court Opinion

ID: 9827756
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 17:49:30.572041+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:35.870045
License: Public Domain

On Amended Motion for Rehearing.
Appellee submits that this court erred in holding, as a matter of law, that appellee was not totally and permanently disabled. The suggestion is, as we understand it, that the jury having found total and permanent disability, this court is bound by the verdict of the jury. As we said in the opinion, “other than1 the amputation of the leg, the evidence does not show that appellee sustained any injury resulting therefrom or lack of capacity to work from the accident.” We also said that to hold that total and permanent disability would result from the amputation of the leg alone would be contrary to our common observation and experience and a conclusion as to a result without evidence to support it. Should the rule be as suggested by appellee, it would be necessary only to show the loss of the leg, and the result of total disability would follow as a matter of law, and this court would be bound by the finding.
The Supreme Court in Choate v. Ry. Co., 90 Tex. 82, page 88, 36 S. W. 247, 37 S. W. 319, on motion for rehearing, discusses the question presented. We refer to the case; also Nations v. Miller (Tex. Civ. App.) 212 S. W. 742; Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. v. Rodgers et al. (Tex. Civ. App.) 42 S.W.(2d) 486; Clem v. Fulghum (Tex. Com. App.) 58 S.W.(2d) 15.
We do not think we are in conflict with Great S. L. I. Co. v. Johnson (Tex. Civ. App.) 294 S. W. 675, or Amarillo Mutual Benev. Ass’n v. Franklin (Tex. Com. App.) 50 S.W.(2d) 264. In the cited eases the evidence went far beyond the fact of the injury. In the Johnson Case the evidence showed and the court said the fact that Johnson had made a long, continuous effort to earn compensation and to engage in a gainful occupation was a complete demonstration of his inability to do so. Here there was no effort at any kind of labor shown, nor evidence that the sole loss of the leg would wholly disable appellee.
The motion is overruled.