Court Opinion

ID: 9834156
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 23:20:43.431825+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:12.120995
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
[2-4] In the original opinion rendered herein the submission of the issue of whether or not John Stadler was an independent contractor was held not to be reversible error, under rule 62a (149 S. W. x), recently adopted by the Supreme Court for the government of the Courts of Civil Appeals.
The rule quoted is certainly most broad and comprehensive, as an error of law is not ground for reversal thereunder, unless, in our opinion, it was such a denial of the rights of the appellant as was not only reasonably calculated to cause, but which probably did cause, the rendition of an improper judgment. A party has the legal right to have submitted to a jury trying his case such issues only as are raised by the evidence. In this respect appellant was denied a legal right in the submission of the issue noted, as the undisputed evidence disclosed that Stadler was not an independent contractor, representing his employer only as to the results of his work, and executing the same according to his own ideas, or in accordance with a plan previously given, and without being- subject to the orders of the employer in respect to details. Wallace v. Oil Co., 91 Tex. 18, 40 S. W. 399; Smith v. Humphreyville, 47 Tex. Civ. App. 140, 104 S. W. 495; 16 Am. & Eng. Enc. of Law, p. 18 (2d Ed.); Shearman & Redfield on Negligence, § 165. It is, of course, impossible for this court from the record before it to tell whether or not the submission of the issue in fact harmed appellant, and therefore necessarily cannot say definitely that in our opinion it caused the rendition of an improper judgment. It is clear, however, that the error was reasonably calculated to do so, and, if so, its natural consequence — i. e., the probable rendition of an improper judgment— should be presumed; otherwise we are left without any definite guide whatever, as it would ordinarily not be apparent from the record whether or not a denial of a legal right in matters of this kind had any injurious consequences. We therefore hold that the error was material, reasonably calculated to cause, and probably did cause, the rendition of an improper judgment.
Rehearing granted, and cause reversed and remanded. •