Court Opinion

ID: 9828129
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:07:33.201134+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:44.220229
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing
Appellant with increased vigor renews its attack upon special issue No. 1, as submitted by the court, and the ruling of the court in refusing a special issue requested by appellant designed to supply an alleged defect in the special issues submitted, and in deference to the earnestness with which the complaint is made we will discuss the question more at length than we did in our original opinion.
Special issue No. 1, submitted to the jury, is as follows:
“Bid the sewage from th.e defendant’s disposal plant pollute and contaminate the water in Salt creek on plaintiff’s land?”
The jury answered this issue in the affirmative. Appellant objected to its submission “for the reason that the court has not defined or set out the amount of pollution or contamination which would bring about the damage to the plaintiff and premises.” The point at issue being “whether or not such pollution and contamination is sufficient to cause the injuries complained of by the plaintiff in this cause.”
The special issue requested to be submitted in lieu of said special issue No. 1 reads thus:
“Did the sewage from the defendant’s disposal plant pollute and contaminate the water on plaintiff’s premises to the extent to render same unfit and unsafe for stock water, or to cause plaintiff any injury named and set out in this petition?”
Appellant in its motion quotes the testimony of a number of witnesses, to the effect that from open closets and otherwise in portions of the city of Graham not served by the sewage plant the waters of Salt creek were also polluted, but 'no witness as we interpret the testimony undertakes to define the extent or degree of the pollution so caused. It cannot be said, therefore, that the evidence raises the issue of damage arising from a cause entirely independent of the sewage plant. There was abundant evidence of pollution caused by the operation and maintenance of the sewage plant complained of, and the court submitted special issue No. 3, reading as follows:
“If you have answered special issue No. 1, ‘Yes,’ then answer whether or not such water was rendered unfit for stock water and domestic purposes.”
And also, special issue No. 4, reading as follows:
“If you have answered special issue No. 1. ‘Yes,’ then state whether or not said water caused or produced the death of any of the plaintiff’s stock.”
[6] Roth of these issues were answered in the affirmative, from which it is reasonable to infer that the water from Salt creek was so polluted by the operation and maintenance of the sewerage system as to at least constitute a wrongful contributing cause of the death of plaintiff’s stock and of the obnoxious odors complained of. The extent of the pollution therefore appears, and under the evidence, as presented to us, it seems immaterial to ascertain the extent to which the waters may have been polluted by extraneous closets, for under such circumstances it is no defense to the city to say that the wrong of others concurred with its own. The rule of torts is that where the act or neglect of a third person concurs with that of an original wrongdoer, both being efficient causes in producing the injury, the liability of the original wrongdoer continues, and the same is true if the negligence of the wrongdoer concurred with some accidental cause to which the injured party had not contributed. See 38 Cyc. 458, and the numerous cases cited, in note 20, including the case of Railway Co. v. McWhirter, 77 Tex. 356, 14 S. W. 26, 19 Am. St. Rep. 755, in which it is said:
“If an accident occurs from two causes, both due to negligence of different persons, but together the efficient cause, then all the persons whose acts contribute to the accident are liable for an injury resulting, and the negligence of one furnishes no excuse for the negligence of the other.”
In other respects we find nothing in the motion that we think requires additional discussion, and we hence overrule it upon all points presented. . ‘