Court Opinion

ID: 9830207
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 19:58:55.116789+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:16.049535
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Our attention is directed to testimony of Mrs. F. A. Delahoussaye, that at the time of the accident it was raining very hard against the west windows of her car that were rather clouded. She had no window wiper and she was driving very slowly. Also testimony of Berry Dillon, driver of the truck, as follows: “I doubt seriously if I could have stopped within 16 feet going 17 miles an hour, because it was very muddy. If I had stopped my car it would have been in the middle of the road. There was plenty of mud on Avenue H. There is no curbing and when it rains the water comes into the streets and brings a lot of mud and water down into the road.”
Under the decisions in Dallas Ry. & Terminal Co. v. Garrison, Tex.Com.App., 45 S.W.2d 185, cited with approval by Commission of Appeals in Magnolia Coca Cola Bottling Co. v. Jordan, 124 Tex. 347, 78 S.W.2d 944, 97 A.L.R. 1513, and Winn v. Taylor, Tex.Civ.App., 111 S.W.2d 1149, the testimony noted above was sufficient to raise the issue of unavoidable accident and the statement to the contrary in our original opinion is hereby withdrawn- But we adhere to the conclusion reached in our original opinion, that there was no merit in the assignment to the submission of the issue of unavoidable accident, on the ground that it erroneously placed upon the defendant the burden of proof on that issue. As pointed out heretofore the form in which that issue was submitted was expressly approved in Southern Ice & Utilities Co. v. Richardson, 128 Tex. 82, 95 S.W.2d 956, 957, by the Commission of Appeals, and in the later case by the same court, in Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. v. Giun, 116 S.W.2d 693, 116 A.L.R. 795.
Those decisions settle the question as to the proper form of submitting the issue of unavoidable accident, and also the question of burden of proof on that issue, and are controlling here.
Appellant cites the decision of the Court of Civil Appeals in the case of McClelland v. Mounger, 107 S.W.2d 901, in which writ of error was dismissed by agreement of the parties, holding that a special issue submitting unavoidable accident in substantially the same form as in this case, erroneously imposed the burden of proof on the defendant. With a request that if we hold to the contrary of that decision, we certify the conflict to the Supreme Court. We must deny the request, because since the decision of the Supreme Court in the Giun case is a later decision, it cannot be supposed that that court would entertain the certificate.
With the corrections noted in our former conclusions, appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.