Court Opinion

ID: 9830653
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:21:52.483414+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:25.312129
License: Public Domain

*459On Appellee’s Motion for Rehearing.
At the time we granted appellant’s motion for a rehearing herein, our attention had not heen called to a proposition of law which we have concluded is controlling in this case, and requires the affirmance of the judgment of the trial court. That proposition is as follows:
[4] Where injury is produced by negligence of the carrier concurring with another cause from which it is exempt from liability, by law, as the act of God, or by contract, and there is no negligence on the part of the shipper contributing to such injury, the carrier is liable in damages for the full amount of such injury. ⅛
The proposition is thus stated in C. J. vol. 10, p. 188:
“The excepted cause of liability must be the sole cause of the loss, for if the negligence of the carrier mingles with it as an active and cooperating cause the carrier will he responsible.”
See, also, same volume, p. 125, and 6 Cyc. p. 525.
The decisions in this state support this view of the law. Ryan v. Railway Co., 65 Tex. 13, 57 Am. Rep. 589; Railway Co. v. Bland, 34 S. W. 675; Railway Co. v. Boyce, 39 Tex. Civ. App. 195, 87 S. W. 395; Railway Co. v. Brass, 175 S. W. 780; Railway Co. v. Nation, 92 S. W. 827; Fentiman v. Railway Co., 44 Tex. Civ. App. 455, 98 S. W. 939; Bonnor v. Wingate, 78 Tex. 337, 14 S. W. 790; Railway Co. v. China Mfg. Co., 79 Tex. 26, 14 S. W. 785.
For the reason stated, appellee’s motion for a rehearing is granted; our judgment reversing and remanding this cause is set aside, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Motion granted.
Judgment affirmed.