Court Opinion

ID: 9829574
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 19:26:46.903962+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:03.130477
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
Appellee has filed an excellently briefed and forcefully argued motion for rehearing. He insists we erred in holding that the issues of unavoidable accident and contributory negligence were raised by the evidence. We have re-examined the grounds upon which our decision was based.
A comparison of the fact situation in the instant case and that present in Thurman v. Chandler, 125 Tex. 34, 81 S.W.(2d) 489, confirms us in our conviction that a submission of the issue of unavoidable accident was the right of appellant
With respect to the issue of contributory negligence, we have concluded that we were in error. The chief danger that Kyser might be expected to foresee would be that arising from material dropping from the bucket passing over his head. It does not appear that he would have been entirely free from that danger, were he under the trestle, and it further appears that to remain under the trestle, it would have been necessary for him to walk on reinforcing rods. This workmen were forbidden to do, because it would tend to displace the rods.
That the record may be in condition to give jurisdiction for further appeal, ap-pellee asks that we rule upon appellant’s assignments numbered 100, 106, 111, 113, and 114.
Assignment No. 113 complains of the amount of damages assesse4 by the jury, challenging it as being excessive. We shall not now rule upon this question.
Assignment No. 100 complains of the submission of an issue as to whether appellant was negligent in not using a “tag line, or other similar attached line.” There was no such negligence pleaded. • However, the error is immaterial, as there were other independent grounds of recovery determined in appellee’s favor.
Assignments 106 and 111 complain of the instructions as to the measure of damages. These assignments are overruled. Texas Utilities Co. v. Dear (Tex.Civ.App.) 64 S. W.(2d) 807; Houston Belt & Terminal Ry. Co. v. Scheppelman (Tex.Civ.App.) 203 S.W. 167.
Assignment 114 is overruled. There was no evidence that the jury discussed the effect of its answers prior to agreement as to the entire verdict. The mere fact that the jurors understood that the plaintiff sought to have them find his injuries were not the result of unavoidable accident does not indicate misconduct upon their part. It indicates merely that they were able to understand from the argument of counsel exactly what finding counsel for each litigant sought. It would be a poor tribute to the capacity of counsel or the intelligence of the jurors to believe that they would long remain ignorant of the attitude of the litigants after listening to argument.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.