Court Opinion

ID: 9768432
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 06:02:32.401504+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:40.791755
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
Appellant H.E.B. contends on rehearing that our original opinion in this case is in error because we failed to limit remand to a new trial of the post-fall negligence cause of action only. We agree.
The jury found no liability attributable to H.E.B. on appellee’s first ground of recovery, which alleged that H.E.B. was negligent in the maintenance of its floor. However, the jury found that H.E.B. was negligence and grossly neglient in its treatment of appellee after her fall.
Appellee did not assign error to the jury’s finding on her first ground of recov*101ery. That portion of the judgment is AFFIRMED and should have been severed from the cause. Young v. Hicks, 559 S.W.2d 343 (Tex.1977); Amoco Production Co., Inc. v. Thompson, 657 S.W.2d 824 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi), rev’d on other grounds, 662 S.W.2d 951 (Tex.1983); McNabb v. Taylor Oil Field Rental Co., 428 S.W.2d 714 (Tex.Civ.App.—San Antonio 1968, writ ref’d n.r.e.).
The judgment of the trial court is therefore AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, and REMANDED for trial of the post-fall negligence and gross negligence issues only. TEX.R.CIV.P. 434.