Court Opinion

ID: 9778305
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 20:59:48.390911+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:06.533472
License: Public Domain

DISSENTING OPINION
GRIFFIN, Justice.
I cannot agree that this cause should be reversed and remanded because “Hardware has no point of error” reasonably related or referable to Hardware’s argument in the Court of Civil Appeals and in this Court “that the evidence establishes conclusively that Mrs. King’s injury was sustained while she was performing services in her capacity as a domestic servant.”
In Hardware’s brief in the Court of Civil Appeals, Point No. One was:
“1) The error of the Court in entering judgment for the appellee and overruling appellant’s amended motion for new trial because there was no evidence to support the jury’s finding that the ap-pellee was not hired or retained as a domestic servant.” (Germane to assignment of error number 1.)
Under the heading “ARGUMENT” Hardware sets out the evidence in the trial court and says: “The question presented to this Court is whether at the time of her injury,1- appellee was a domestic servant.” Again, in the argument Hardware says: “It is appellant’s position that even under this test [for a no evidence point] the appellee’s testimony shows that at the time of her injury, and for a long time prior thereto, appellee was required to perform the duties of a domestic servant.” Again: “Thus the evidence uncon-trovertibly established that she was hired to do and regularly did duties of a domestic nature, and thus as a matter of law was at the time of her injury a domestic servant, and the jury’s finding has no support in the evidence.” Again: “It is submitted, however, * * * nonetheless, her testimony established that at the time of her injury she was performing the duties of a domestic servant, for which duties she had been expressly hired, and which she did regularly, and this was as a domestic servant * * * as a matter of law.” Again: “It is submitted that her work at the time of her injury is controlling under Texas law; and at the crucial time she was a domestic servant as a matter of law.”
In its motion for rehearing in the Court of Civil Appeals, Hardware had set out verbatim its point of error quoted from its brief, and under this point says: “It is respectfully urged that as a matter or law, that at the time of her injury, the appellee was performing duties of a domestic nature and was a domestic servant” and excluded from recovery under the Workmen’s Compensation Law.
In its application for writ of error filed in this Court, Hardware as its Second Point *220of Error copies verbatim its Point (1) in the Court of Civil Appeals above set out and makes the same argument as I have quoted from its brief in the Court of Civil Appeals.
With Hardware’s brief and argument in the Court of Civil Appeals and in its application for writ of error in this Court, I cannot say Hardware has not raised the point that at the time of her injury the evidence in this case shows as a matter of law that Mrs. King was working as a domestic servant. The majority states that the evidence in this casé establishes conclusively that Mrs. King was hired or retained by Musser Motors in two capacities, (1) as a domestic servant in the homes of the officers of the company and (2) as a janitress at the company’s place of business. If (1) is by this record “established conclusively,” then the jury’s answer that Mrs. King was not hired or retained as a domestic servant must of necessity have no support in the evidence. The evidence conclusively established that at the time of her injury Mrs. King was not working as a janitress at the Motor Company’s place of business. Therefore, she was not injured while working in the industrial part of her employment contract, but in the domestic servant phase of her employment.
Not working in the industrial part of her employment at the time of her injury, she was working in the usual course of her employment under her contract of employment with Musser Motors, and the jury answer to issue 2-C was and is correct. She was injured under her contract of employment with Musser Motors to do work as a housemaid. Plaintiff contends that the answer of the jury to this issue 2-C must be set aside in order to prevent a recovery by her. The vice in this contention is that being employed by Musser Motors in two capacities, she was engaged in the usual course of her employment by Musser Motors when she was working in either capacity. The jury’s answer to 2-C does not specify in which capacity she was working at the home of Mr. Musser. She cannot recover as a housemaid; therefore, the jury’s answer decides no issue material to this case. As a housemaid or domestic servant, she is not covered by the Compensation Act, although she was injured in the course of her employment with Musser Motors.
Not being injured under her employment as a janitress, she can only recover if she had been temporarily directed or instructed by Musser Motors to act as housemaid at Mr. Musser’s home at the time of her injury. Art. 8309, Sec. 1, Vernon’s Ann. Civ. Statutes; Oilmen’s Reciprocal Ass’n v. Gilleland (Tex.Com.App.1927), 291 S.W. 197; Texas Emp. Ins. Ass’n v. Wright, 128 Tex. 242, 97 S.W.2d 171 (1936). This record establishes conclusively that plaintiff worked regularly as a housemaid and not temporarily as such.
The majority opinion now agrees with the Court’s prior holding that the evidence establishes conclusively that Mrs. King was hired or retained as a domestic servant. To my mind, this settles the case so that the original disposition is the correct one. The Compensation Law very plainly and clearly excludes domestic servants from its coverage. No agreement of parties, no paying of compensation premiums can put one within the coverage who the Legislature has specifically directed shall not be covered.
The cases by this Court are legion wherein it is recognized that no technical wording or form will be required for this Court to consider an error complained of by argument and citation of authorities. In Gleason v. Davis, 155 Tex. 467, 289 S.W.2d 228, 230 (1956), quoting from Lang v. Harwood (Tex.Civ.App.1940), 145 S.W.2d 945, the court said:
“ * * * It has long been the policy of this court to apply the most liberal construction in favor of the sufficiency of the brief and to give effect thereto, if it is possible for us to ascertain either from the assignment, proposition or *221statement and argument the point intended to be presented thereby. * * *”
In McKelvy v. Barber, Tex.Sup., 381 S.W.2d 59 (1964), this Court recognized and discussed a contention and reversed and remanded the cause to the trial court when no point complaining of the error upon which remand was ordered was before the Court of Civil Appeals. This Court then said that since all parties had briefed this question in the Court of Civil Appeals and the Court of Civil Appeals had decided it, “ * * * we think it should be treated as having been properly presented at the intermediate court level even though not raised by a formal point of error in the appellant’s brief.”
In Fambrough v. Wagley, 140 Tex. 577, 169 S.W.2d 478, 482 (1943), this Court said:
“ * * * If a ‘point’ is sufficient to direct the Court’s attention to the matter complained of, the Court will look to the ‘point’ and the statement and argument thereunder to determine the question of reversible error. Simply stated, the Court will pass on both the sufficiency and the merits of the ‘point’ in the light of the statement and argument thereunder.”
In her answer to the application for writ of error respondent sets out all of the evidence shown in the record which will sustain the jury’s answer to special issue No. 1 that Agnes King was not hired or retained by Musser Motors as a domestic servant. Under her argument and authorities following this statement, respondent says: “The law of this State is that the nature of the business in which the employee is hired to work and not the duties he regularly performs are the controlling tests and not the specific activity he is engaged in at the time of his injury.” Respondent cites Hill v. Georgia Casualty Co. (Comm. of App. 1932), 45 S.W.2d 566; Commercial Cas. Ins. Co. v. Strawn (Tex.Civ.App.1932), 44 S.W.2d 805, writ refused; Tex. Emp. Ins. Ass’n v. Weber (Tex.Civ.App.1965), 386 S.W.2d 835, writ refused, n. r. e.; Fidelity Union Cas. Co. v. Carey (Comm. of App. 1932), 55 S.W.2d 795.
The parties to this litigation in the trial court and on appeal joined issue on the question of whether or not Agnes King was hired and retained by Musser Motors as a domestic servant, and was injured while working in such capacity. The parties pitched their case on this issue. The majority recognizes that she was so hired and retained as a domestic servant, even though she was also hired and retained as a jani-tress at the office of Musser Motors.
In the last paragraph of the majority opinion it is stated that on a retrial of the case, if the evidence is the same with reference to the contract of employment, no issue should be submitted “since we have held the evidence establishes conclusively that Mrs. King was employed as a janitress in Musser Motor’s place of business and as a domestic servant in the homes of officers of the company.” Then the opinion says if the evidence on retrial raises an issue as to whether or not Mrs. King was injured while performing services as a domestic servant, such issue should be submitted. In my reading of the facts of this cause, the evidence conclusively establishes that Mrs. King was injured while working at the home of Mr. Musser. She had been working as a domestic servant at the home on the day of her injury since about 7:30 or 8:00 a. m. This fact is testified to by Mrs. King, as well as Mr. and Mrs. Musser. She suffered her injury at about 1:30 p. m. on this very day. Her work at the home of Mr. and Mrs. Musser was not of a temporary nature, but was a part of her regular job as an employee of Musser Motor Company. She was injured in this capacity, and the Compensation Law excludes her from its coverage.
The evidence, including her own, establishes conclusively that she was not covered by the Act, in that she was a domestic servant. Being a domestic servant, the Legislature has excluded her from the benefits of the Act, and no court can put her within such coverage.
*222I would reverse and render the case as a majority of the Court did when it handed down its original opinion on November 29, 1967.
WALKER and POPE, JJ., join in this dissent.

. All emphasis supplied by the writer.