Court Opinion

ID: 9778575
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 21:12:51.558074+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:33:11.754713
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing
On motion for rehearing we have been cited the case of South Austin Drive-In Theatre et al. v. Thomison et al., Tex.Civ.App., 421 S.W.2d 933, ref., n. r. e. It is contended that our decision is in conflict with that decision. We think not. We think the actual holding of the court was that the mere asking of the members of the panel whether they, any member of their family, or any of their friends were connected with the insurance industry would not of itself “constitute a showing of such prejudice as would be reasonably calculated to cause a miscarriage of justice.” Too, the court noticed that there was no claim that the award of damages was excessive.
In the case before us there was not merely an inquiry of the panel as to whether any member had any connection with any insurance company, but there was also the unresponsive answer of appellee disclosing that appellant had told him he had insurance, and the further question by appellee’s counsel as to whether any member of the panel thought a verdict in the case would affect their insurance rates. Appellant, on motion for new trial, and here, contended the damage award was excessive. We have, in our original opinion, reviewed the evidence. We remain of the view that the errors noticed, taken together, were so harmful as to require reversal.
Motion for rehearing overruled.