Court Opinion

ID: 9831996
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:31:58.914297+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:40.819537
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
Both parties have filed motions for rehearing. Appellant earnestly argues that judgment should be rendered for her, on the ground that one of the two issues we held to be conflicting was an immaterial issue, and for that reason should he disregarded. The rule claimed to be applicable and controlling is that a verdict upon immaterial issues constitutes no obstacle to the rendition of a judgment otherwise properly supported and authorized. There is no doubt of the correctness of this general rule. Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. Connellee (Tex. Com. App.) 11 S.W.(2d) 158, and authorities cited. Whether that rule has application to this case we need not stop to inquire. We have concluded that, irrespective of the merits of the motion attacking appellant’s brief, we are authorized, and it is our duty, to consider and determine whether the special plea in regard to the airplane means of transportation is, as a matter of law, Insufficient to constitute a defense. A part of appellant’s exceptions, although called “special exceptions,” were in fact general demurrers to certain of appellant’s special defenses. This is particularly true of the exceptions with reference to the special defense to the effect that appellant, having voluntarily chosen the airplane means of transportation, was thereafter negligent in certain respects, which proximately caused the appellant’s injuries. The action of the court in sustaining' or overruling an exception to a special defense which challenges its sufficiency in law to constitute a defense, if error at all, is fundamental, and requires no assignment. Astin v. Mosteller (Tex. Civ. App.) 152 S. W. 495; Freidenbloom v. McAfee (Tex. Civ. App.) 167 S. W. 28; Richardson v. Terry (Tex. Civ. App.) 212 S. W. 523; City of San Antonio v. Talerico, 98 Tex. 151, 81 S. W. 518.
 No question is presented as to whether appellant was under any duty, in order to minimize the effects of appellee’s negligence, to adopt an airplane as a means of transportation. The theory of appellee’s special plea was that, appellant having voluntarily adopted that means of transportation, and having failed to reach the bedside of her son during his conscious moments only because of negligence attributable to her, she was therefore not entitled to recover. We are unable to sanction the view that, as a matter of law, this presented no defense to appellant’s cause of action. Mere imperfections in the plea, or in the issues relating to same, which were submitted to the jury, cannot have the effect of rendering immaterial the finding of the jury that “unnecessary delays enroute by airplane from San Antonio to and at Lubbock, after plaintiff left the former city,” were “the sole proximate cause” of plaintiff’s injury.
On the proposition that conflicting findings upon material-issues will not support a judgment, there may be cited, in addition to the authorities cited in the original opinion, the following: Humble Oil & Rfg. Co. v. Strauss (Tex. Civ. App.) 243 S. W. 528; Pullman Co. v. Castleberry (Tex. Civ. App.) 251 S. W. 518; Stewart v. Schaff (Tex. Civ. App.) 269 S. W. 135; McKinney v. Smith (Tex. Civ. App.) 271 S. W. 247; Barnes Bros. v. I. & G. N. Ry. Co. (Tex. Com. App.) 1 S.W.(2d) 273; Stiles v. Union Terminal Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 1 S.W.(2d) 947.
Being of opinion that both motions for rehearing should be overrule.d, it is accordingly so ordered.