Court Opinion

ID: 9776412
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 19:34:14.753287+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:38.478958
License: Public Domain

SHARPE, Justice
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent. I would sustain the basic contention of appellant carrier that there was no evidence to support a finding that the television set (which was shown to be damaged at destination) was delivered at San Antonio to Red Arrow, the carrier, by Central Distributing Company, the shipper, in good condition.
The majority opinion concedes that “There is no testimony in the record from any witness who actually saw the shipping carton in Central Distributing Company’s warehouse. It is conclusively established that the carton was not opened or its contents examined at that warehouse. The only evidence offered at the trial relating to the condition of the carton (in which the television set was packed) at origin of shipment was circumstantial.”
The evidence shows that the damaged television set was packed for shipment by the manufacturer at Franklin Park, Illinois, and was then shipped to Central Distributing Company at San Antonio, Texas, by a combination of truck, rail and boat transportation. The set arrived at San Antonio about February 24, 1970 where it was stored until March 9, 1970, when shipment was made to the consignee, appellee here.
There is no evidence of probative value to show the condition of either the carton or its contents (the television set) at San Antonio. In particular, there is no evidence to show the good condition of the television set at San Antonio. The consignee-appellee tried his case in such a yray as to require a finding of good condition of the television set (the contents of the carton) at San Antonio when it was delivered to appellant-shipper. In my view, ap-pellee failed to offer any evidence of probative force to establish such good condition of the set at origin.
The case of Missouri Pacific Railroad Company v. Elmore and Stahl, 360 S.W.2d 839, 842, 843 (Tex.Civ.App., San Antonio 1962) insofar as it involves Count II of the petition there is closely in point. A comparison of the evidence in the cited case, which was held insufficient to establish good condition of the shipment (honey dew melons) with that in the instant case leads to the conclusion that the evidence here is also legally insufficient to establish good condition of the television sét when it was received by the appellant carrier at San Antonio. It should also be noted that the judgment in the cited case was final as to Count II thereof, and the further appellate court decisions related only to Count I of the petition.
For the reasons stated I would reverse the judgment of the trial court and render a take-nothing judgment in favor of appellant.