Court Opinion

ID: 9584516
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:49:14.193692+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:08:07.361366
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellant again vehemently asserts that no recovery was authorized in this case. Essentially, it is submitted that appellee’s fall in August, 1976 constituted an efficient superseding cause which, absent evidence that the automobile injury caused the fall or that the fall was foreseeable, relieved the insurance company of further liability for appellee’s injuries.
A review of the jury charges shows that the jury was instructed that recovery could be had for injuries sustained in the fall regardless of causation if appellee "proves the fall of August 30,1976 aggravated an existing and continuing injury which originated in the automobile injuries of May 19, 1976 and that the medical expenses were due solely to the aggravation of the original automobile injuries of May, 1976.” Appellant did not object to this charge then and does not object to this charge now. A review of the evidence shows that appellee *354produced competent evidence authorizing recovery under these instructions. Accordingly, we adhere to our original decision.

Motion for rehearing denied.