Court Opinion

ID: 9832748
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:09:28.95655+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:46.450311
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
A further examination of the record in this case has convinced us that the) evidence does raise the issue of accident. In the case of Rosenthal Dry Goods Co. v. Hillebrandt, supra, it was distinctly held that when the issue of unavoidable accident was raised by the evidence the burden is on the plaintiff to prove that his injuries did not result from that cause. While that particular objection was not embraced in the formal objections presented in the trial, it was indicated in the form of the special issue requested and refused. Rodgers v. Fleming (Tex. Com. App.) 3 S.W.(2d) 77; Lamar v. Panhandle & S. F. Ry. Co. (Tex. Com. App.) 248 S. W. 34; Graves v. Haynes (Tex. Com. App.) 231 S. W. 383. We are of the opinion that the court erred in not placing the burden of proof on that issue on the plaintiff.
The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.