Court Opinion

ID: 9828587
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:31:21.751054+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:50.721797
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
As shown in plaintiff’s pleadings, her cause of action was for a permanent depreciation in the market value of her property as the result of the seepage of gasoline from defendant’s filling station into the water well situated on her property. It is apparent, therefore, that a finding either by the court or by the jury that the market value of the property had been permanently impaired was necessary to recover the damages sought. And upon a further consideration of the ease we have reached the conclusion -that the failure of the court to submit that issue was reversible error. Since such a finding was necessary to plaintiff’s recovery for the damages alleged, it was not incumbent upon the defendant to request the submission of that issue in order to complain of -the judgment. Alexander v. Good Marble & Tile Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 4 S.W. (2d) 636 (writ refused); Dallas Hotel Co. v. Davison (Tex. Com. App.) 23 S.W.(2d) 708; and decisions there cited; Walling v. Rose (Tex. Civ. App.) 2 S.W. (2d) 352; Tripplehorn v. Ladd-Hannon Oil Corp. (Tex. Civ. App.) 8 S.W.(2d) 217 (writ dismissed).
Accordingly, appellant’s assignment complaining of the failure of the court to submit the issue of alleged permanent injury to plaintiff’s property is sustained; our former order affirming the judgment of the trial court is set aside,, and the judgment of the trial court Is reversed and the cause remanded for another trial; but we adhere to the conclusions reached in our original opinion on all other assignments of error presented here.