Court Opinion

ID: 9827590
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 17:40:52.673568+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:33.559822
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
At a former term of this court we concluded thgt, as the plaintiff had alleged several specific injuries to his person by reason of the accident complained of and had not alleged any injury to his eyes, it was error for the trial court to permit the plaintiff’s attending physician to testify that his principal injury was to his eyes, and having reached such conclusion, and because of the admission of such testimony, we reversed the judgment of the trial court and remanded the cause for retrial. Pending a motion for rehearing by appellee, we certified to the Supreme Court (230 S. W. 139) the question as to whether or not the testimony complained of was admissible-under the general allegation:
“That plaintiff’s whole nervous system has .been shocked and permanently injured, and as a result of his said injuries the plaintiff is now suffering and will continue at all times hereafter to suffer from neurasthenia.”
The Supreme Court in answer to such question answered that such testimony was admissible, stating:
“Under the medical testimony set out in the certificate, plaintiff was suffering and would continue to suffer from traumatic neurasthenia, which was a derangement of the nervous system, and the condition of plaintiff’s eye was both a symptom and a result of traumatic neurasthenia” — citing H. & T. C. Ry. Co. v. Hanks, 58 Tex. Civ. App. 298, 124 S. W. 138; Ft. Worth & R. G. Ry. Co. v. White, 51 S. W. 856.
It is apparent that the answer of the Supreme* Court is contrary to the conclusion reached by us in our former opinion and requires the granting olf the motion for rehearing -and an affirmance of the judgment of the trial court, unless we can hold under the evidence that the judgment rendered was excessive, as insisted by appellant.
We have carefully examined the evidence relating to this question, and are not prepared to say that the amount awarded as damages was excessive. We therefore affirm the judgment.