Court Opinion

ID: 9862854
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 02:20:31.046856+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:36:31.746836
License: Public Domain

HUGHES, Justice
(concurring).
Although it is my opinion that the Trial Court failed to submit a controlling issue as required by Rule 279, T.R.C.P., no reversible error is reflected.
A controlling or ultimate issue “involves a proper legal analysis of the controversy.” Luling Oil and Gas Co. v. Edwards, 32 S.W.2d 921, Austin Civil Appeals, writ dism., Dreeben v. Sidor, 254 S.W.2d 908, Amarillo Civil Appeals, writ ref., n. r. e. See also Texas Employers Ins. Ass’n v. Reed, 150 S.W.2d 858, writ dism., C. J., Amarillo Court of Civil Appeals.
Appellees pleaded in this case that, “At and before the time and occasion in question” defendants were “negligent in failing to discover and eliminate such defect in such safety catch.” They also alleged that, “This defect in such hood safety catch continued to exist until the date of the accident in question.”
No issue was submitted to the jury inquiring whether or not the safety catch was defective at the time of the accident. This was a “plaintiff issue.” Appellees, who were plaintiffs did not request a submission of this issue, nor did appellants object to the charge on this ground. Appellants did request an issue inquiring about the defective condition of the safety catch at the time of the accident but they did not complain about the failure to submit this issue in their motion for new trial.
These observations lead to these conclusions : (1) Appellees waived their right to have a controlling issue submitted (2) Appellants waived their right to complain about the failure of the Trial Court to submit this issue.
It is my opinion that the findings made by the jury are sufficient to support the judgment. I, therefore, concur in the af-firmance of this case.