Court Opinion

ID: 9767832
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 05:30:00.933567+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:33.637513
License: Public Domain

On Motions for Rehearing
In our original opinion this case was reversed and remanded for another trial because of the failure to submit appellant’s defensive issue on arson to the jury. We stated that there was circumstantial evidence requiring the submission of appellant’s requested issue on whether appellee intentionally burned the insured property. In this motion for rehearing appellee has pointed out the issue requested by appellant merely asked whether appellee set fire to and burned the property, the element of intent being entirely omitted. Appellee asserts that such request is insufficient as a basis for reversal because of Rule 279 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, providing, in part :
“Failure to submit an issue shall not be deemed a ground for reversal of the judgment, unless its submission, in substantially correct wording, has been requested in writing and tendered by the party complaining of the judgment ⅝ * * }>
In call of Houston, Inc. v. Mulvey, 343 S.W.2d 522, this Court discussed the term “substantially correct” as follows:
“Such requirement does not mean that it must be absolutely correct, nor does it mean that one that is merely sufficient to call the matter to the attention of the trial court will suffice, but rather it means one That in substance and in the main is correct and that is not affirmatively incorrect.”
A correctly worded issue to establish the issue of arson must contain the element of intent. In State Farm Fire and Casualty Company v. Ulteig, Tex.Civ.App., 367 S.W.2d 898, err. ref., n. r. e., the court approved the following issue: “Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence that * * * caused the destruction of the house at 1630 Woodcrest by intentionally and willfully setting fire to it on February 5, 1960?”
The tendered issue, as worded, would not have negatived accident or other fortuitous circumstance. A favorable answer to the issue would not have established the defense appellant had pled.
The other errors pointed out in our original opinion concerned matters of evidence relating to the defense of arson. Since no issue on that defense was required to be, or was, submitted to the jury, these errors were harmless.
Appellee’s motion for rehearing is granted. Former judgment vacated, set aside and annulled and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.