Court Opinion

ID: 9832806
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:12:59.802316+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:53.122024
License: Public Domain

On Rebearing.
Appellees, by motion for rebearing, have earnestly and persuasively insisted that we were in error in reversing tbe case because of misconduct of tbe jury. We have given careful consideration to the motion, but have not been convinced that, upon tbe record as we passed upon it, we should make any other disposition of tbe appeal.
Alternative to the claim that we should set aside our former judgment and affirm tbe case, appellees have offered to remit the sum of $2,000 of tbe judgment, upon condition that tbe order of reversal be set aside and tbe judgment reformed to provide a recovery of $3,000, being tbe amount of the judgment of the trial court, less tbe remittitur, and as so reformed to affirm the judgment.
The evidence shows without dispute that, at tbe time of tbe alleged misconduct occurred, all issues bad been agreed to by tbe jury save the amount of tbe judgment, and that tbe amount which tbe several jurors-were in favor of awarding ranged from a minimum of $3,000 up, tbe amount of tbe judgment rendered being $5,000, apportioned $4,000 to Mary Bratton and $1,000 to Bunk Bratton.’ Tbe offer to remit includes tbe request to make a like apportionment.
Our original judgment, as tbe opinion will disclose, was based upon our inability to say beyond a reasonable doubt that tbe misconduct did not, to any degree, influence tbe verdict. Tbe jury, in their deliberations, were only out 30 or 40 minutes. Tbe record carries no suggestion that the alleged misconduct could have possibly influenced tbe verdict of the jury further than to add $2,000 to tbe amount of it. We have no doubt that by making tbe judgment $3,000 all possible influence of tbe misconduct will be rendered harmless. To bold otherwise would be tantamount to bolding that once misconduct is shown to exist it can never be held to be harmless. Many and respectable decisions recognize that facts may exist that will render harmless material misconduct of tbe jury, and, upon their authority, as well as tbe reasoning by which they are supported, we think, upon tbe remittitur being made, tbe judgment may properly be affirmed as requested. See Texas Electric R. Co. v. Texas Employers’ Ins. Ass’n (Tex. Civ. App.) 9 S.W.(2d) 185; International-G. N. Ry. Co. v. Cooper (Tex. Com. App.) 1 S.W.(2d) 578; Steele Co. v. Dover (Tex. Civ. App.) 170 S. W. 809; El Paso Elec. Co. v. Whitenaek (Tex. Com. App.) 1 S.W.(2d) 594.
Tbe motion for rehearing is therefore granted. Tbe offer of remittitur- of $2,000 is accepted. Tbe judgment of tbe trial court will be reformed so as to provide that a recovery of $600 be awarded in favor of Bunk Bratton and $2,400 in favor of Mary Brat-ton, and, as so reformed will be affirmed, and it is accordingly so ordered.