Court Opinion

ID: 9656762
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 19:59:25.499018+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:35.301862
License: Public Domain

Concurring opinion by:
ALMA L. LÓPEZ, Justice.
With regard to the issue involving the equalization of peremptory strikes, the ma*571jority frames the issue as “whether the antagonism that would exist in a possible, future contribution suit is sufficient to establish antagonism in the primary suit.” The majority holds that it is not. Although I concur in the conclusion reached by the majority, I write separately to explain my reasoning.
“The threshold question to be answered in allocating strikes when multiple litigants are involved on one side of a lawsuit is whether any of those litigants on the same side are antagonistic with respect to a question that the jury will decide.” Patterson Dental Co. v. Dunn, 592 S.W.2d 914, 918 (Tex.1979). “[Ljitigants on the same side of the docket are deemed to be a ‘party’ under the rule when their interests are not antagonistic in a matter in which the jury is to be concerned.” Id. at 917. “The antagonism must exist on an issue of fact that will be submitted to the jury.” Id. at 918.
In this case, the only liability issue to be submitted to the jury was whether “Y” Propane and/or Francisco’s negligence proximately caused Francisco’s injuries and the percentage of negligence attributable to each. The Garcias and Peña were not antagonistic regarding this issue. The jury in this case was not concerned with any right of contribution “Y” Propane may have against Peña. Therefore, the contribution issue was not a “matter in which the jury [was] to be concerned.” Id. at 917. Since the Garcias and Peña were not antagonistic with regard to the issue to be submitted and decided by the jury, the Garcias and Peña, as one side, should have received the same number of strikes as “Y” Propane. Id. at 918.