Court Opinion

ID: 9827821
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 17:52:37.052209+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:37.305903
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellant insists that the recent opinion by the Supreme Court, Tarry Warehouse & Storage Co. v. Duvall, 115 S.W.2d 401, not yet published [in State report], in which the judgments of the trial court and Court of Civil Appeals were reversed, 94 S.W.2d 1249, is authority for requiring a reversal of the instant suit for failure to include and define “new and independent cause” in the court’s charge.
Our Supreme Court has held that a “new and independent cause” is one that could not have been reasonably foreseen, or anticipated, in the light of the attendant circumstances.
In the case relied upon by appellant, the Supreme Court held that the bright lights of an approaching vehicle, which blinded the driver of the truck that collided with another truck parked on the side of the road, raised the issue of new and independent cause.
We were of opinion that the truck driver ought to have reasonably foreseen such an event, it being one that is commonly encountered and experienced by every person who drives at night.
We respectfully accept and follow the holding of our Supreme Court in that case, but there is no act of a third person involved in the instant suit and we do not believe that the acts or omissions of a negligent party, which brought about the accident of which complaint is made, can be said to be an independent agency, nor do we believe that the acts or omissions of the injured persons constitute a new and independent agency. Such is the record before us, and we follow the Dallas Court of Civil Appeals in its holding in Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. Owen, 101 S.W.2d 354, writ dismissed.
The motion is overruled.