Court Opinion

ID: 9666968
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 01:31:34.735606+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:33.892374
License: Public Domain

OPINION ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
Appellant, in its motion for rehearing, requests that we make certain findings of fact and conclusions of law concerning the jury’s findings of proximate cause and the evidence establishing any damages suffered by appellee, Oscar Leal.
*486In Nowlin v. Hall, 97 Tex. 441, 79 S.W. 806 (1904) the Supreme Court, in discussing the statutes then in effect, similar to our present Rules of Civil Procedure 453 and 455, concluded that Rule 453 requires only that a Court of Civil Appeals file conclusions or findings that the evidence in a particular ease is or is not factually sufficient to support express or implied trial court or jury findings on important issues made by the pleadings and evidence.
It is not required that a Court of Civil Appeals make evidentiary findings or that it repeat all of the evidence in its opinion or all of the trial court findings which appear in the record. City of Beaumont v. Graham, 441 S.W.2d 829 (Tex.1969); Moore v. Copeland, 478 S.W.2d 573 (Tex.Civ.App.—Corpus Christi 1972, writ ref’d n.r.e.).
In our original opinion we found that the findings of the jury concerning the negligence of appellant, with respect to the issue of proximate cause, were supported, both legally and factually, by the evidence. In re King’s Estate, 150 Tex. 662, 244 S.W.2d 660 (1951). Appellant’s first request is denied.
Appellant also requests supplemental findings on damages suffered by appellee Oscar Leal individually. This point was originally included in appellant’s brief in a group of points of error as to excessive damages. The excessive damages points of error were all overruled. The court’s charge to the jury included among other elements of damage, loss of past and future earnings, loss of household services in the past and in the future, and future medical expenses to both Oscar Leal and Leonor Leal. Appellant made no objection to this portion of the court’s charge. The damages are not otherwise separated. No objection having been made to the court’s charge, it is considered waived and cannot be considered on appeal. Rule 272, T.R.C.P.; Leatherwood v. Holland, 375 S.W.2d 517 (Tex.Civ.App.—0 County Airport Board v. Clark, 378 S.W.2d 932 (Tex.Civ.App.—Amarillo 1964, no writ). Appellant’s second request is also denied.
We find no merit in the matters raised in appellant’s motion for rehearing and we adhere to our original disposition of the case.