Court Opinion

ID: 9771461
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 16:44:17.3731+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:31.743326
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing
Rule 455, T.C.P. Notwithstanding the resume of testimony above, which in our opinion was sufficient support for the judgment rendered, appellant requests extensive supplemental findings; to be found, for example, in testimony of plaintiff and both Doctors Morgan and Bounds. The latter were witnesses for plaintiff, the testimony relating to their subsequent treatment and conclusions with respect to plaintiff’s condition; evidentiary in nature and bearing on issues other than Number One. “ * * * it is never necessary, under our rules of practice, to find facts that are undisputed in the record, or recite evidence which may tend to conflict with findings made.” Order of United Commercial Travelers of America v. Roth, Tex.Civ. App., 159 S.W. 176, 179 ; 4 Tex.Jur.2d p. 434. However, it is true that Dr. Bounds on inquiry of what caused the physical condition of plaintiff made answer: “I don’t know what caused it.” In this connection, we find in the record no medical testimony by any physician to effect that the injuries complained of by appellee were directly or proximately caused or were the result of the single treatment of February 11, 1958 given appellee by Dr. Thaxton. Also that prior to the occurrence, Dr. Thaxton had stepped out into the hall, and when he returned, “was carrying something covered up with a towel”; that plaintiff did not see any instruments and did not know what he was carrying.
The supplemental findings sought by appellant from the testimony of jurors on charges of misconduct were likewise evi-dentiary; the excerpts therefrom in original opinion demonstrating, without more, the existence of a fact question involving misconduct, determined by the trial court from a preponderance of the evidence as not proven.
Appellant further objected to the form of Issue Number One as amounting to a “general charge.” It is held in Frozen Foods Express v. Odom, Tex.Civ.App., 229 S.W.2d 92, that such an objection is insufficient compliance with Rule 274, T. C.P., requiring that a party objecting to a charge must point out distinctly the matter to which he objects and the grounds of his obj ection.
Motion for rehearing is overruled.