Court Opinion

ID: 9668797
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 02:26:55.675337+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:48.371280
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
In its motion for rehearing, and supplement thereto, appellant vigorously challenges our holding that the evidence is sufficient to support the jury’s finding, in answer to special issue no. 14, that Monroe’s employer had notice of the December 31st injury within 30 days after its occurrence.
In connection with issue no. 14, the court instructed the jury: “Notice to or actual knowledge on the part of a foreman or other supervisor or an agent designated by the employer to receive such notice is ‘notice to the employer’.”1 No objection was made to the instruction.
We have again sifted the evidence, and we remain convinced that it is legally and factually sufficient to support the jury’s answer to issue 14.
The other assignments of error in the motion for rehearing are also without merit and the motion is overruled.

. See Sec. 4a, Art. 8307, Vernon’s Ann.Tex.Civ.St.