Court Opinion

ID: 9832254
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:45:44.662388+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:44.830765
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
 On reconsideration of the case we have concluded 'that the remarks of counsel in his argument may have caused a larger verdict than it otherwise might have been. The more recent cases hold that, where the argument of counsel is erroneous, a reversal must 'follow unless it affirmatively appears that no prejudice resulted therefrom, and the burden is on appellee to show that no harmful result followed erroneous remarks. The former holdings have been modified, and the rule is now as stated. Floyd v. Fidelity Union Casualty Co. et al. (Tex. Com. App.) 39 S.W. (2d) 1091; Brown Cracker & Candy Co. v. Castle (Tex. Civ. App.) 20 S.W. (2d) 435; Dallas Ry. & Ter. Co. v. Gladys Smith (Tex. Civ. App.) 42 S.W.(2d) 794.
It is insisted also that we are in error in overruling appellant’s objection to the trial court’s charge in failing to charge the jury not to allow anything for loss or damage on account of grief or sorrow, or for' loss of the society, affection, or companionship of the deceased.
Without discussing the question presented, we say only, in view of another trial, that the ease of Hines, Director General, v. Kelley, 252 S. W. 1033, by Judge McClendon of the Commission of Appeals, Section B, and approved by the Supreme Court, sustains appellant’s contention.
Other objections presented in the motion are overruled.
The motion is sustained in part, and overruled in part,