Court Opinion

ID: 9832585
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:01:12.007313+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:48.451560
License: Public Domain

On Appellees’ Motion for Rehearing.
Appellees urgently insist in their motion for rehearing that the testimony of the jurors on the motion for a new trial presented a conflict on the fact issue of whether the jurors, notwithstanding their agreements first reached, designedly answered the special issues so as to accomplish such result; and that by overruling said motion the trial court found such fact against such contention. This, in large measure, is predicated upon the answers of such jurors on cross examination that they answered. each question according to the evidence without regard to such recovery.. Consequently that our holding is in conflict with numerous cited cases of which Monkey Grip Rubber Co. v. Walton, 122 Tex. 185, 53 S.W.2d 770, and Waggoman v. Ft. Worth Well Machinery & Supply Co., 124 Tex. 325, 76 S.W.2d 1005, are typical.
We have accordingly again carefully read the testimony of such jurors. In addition to the matters mentioned in the original opinion, it appears that the jury were confused about how to answer the issue as to whether appellees’ truck had a side reflector. One juror testified that all of the jurors were of the opinion that it did not; but that they concluded that the answer thereto was immaterial, and so answered it to the contrary. This in itself constituted misconduct. Walker v. Quanah, A. & P. R. Co., Tex.Com.App., 58 S.W.2d 4; Allcorn v. Ft. Worth & R. G. R. Co., Tex.Civ.App., 122 S.W.2d 341; 31 Tex.Jur., § 47, p. 55. And where acts of misconduct are proved “scant attention will ordinarily be paid to declarations of jurors that they were not affected by the wrongful conduct.” 31 Tex.Jur., § 49, p. 57, and cases cited.
Taking the testimony of the jurors in connection with what the record otherwise affirmatively discloses, we are of the opinion that misconduct of the jury was conclusively shown; and that it was not a disputed fact issue on conflicting evidence. Likewise it does not appear that it did not reasonably affect the rights of the defendant. Such misconduct therefore requires a reversal of the judgment irrespective of whether the argument complained of constitutes reversible error or not. The motion is therefore overruled.