Court Opinion

ID: 9666225
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 01:08:13.370495+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:25.058023
License: Public Domain

On Appellees’ Motion for Rehearing.
Appellees urge, by motion for rehearing, that we erred in construing appellant’s second point as invoking our fact finding jurisdiction. Appellant’s second point is as follows: “There is insufficient evidence that the hamburger eaten by Maria Albeza Garza was unfit for human consumption, by reason of which the trial court erred in refusing to grant defendant’s motion for instructed verdict and motion for judgment non obstante veredicto. Sickness alone is insufficient evidence that the hamburger was contaminated.” Appellant’s only other point is identical except that the first four words are: “There is no evidence.”
It is our opinion, upon reconsideration of appellant’s brief, that both of appellant’s points are “no evidence” points and we, therefore, have no jurisdiction to remand this case. In McDonald v. New York Central Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 380 S.W.2d 545, 548 (1964), the Supreme Court considered very similar points1 and held that they did not seek relief from the jury findings on the ground that they were not supported by sufficient evidence or that they were against the great weight of the evidence, but related only to the type of judgment that the trial court entered. In that case, as in ours, a motion for new trial was filed. See also Schafer v. Stevens, Tex.Civ.App., 352 S.W.2d 471, no wr.hist.; Calvert, *94“No Evidence” and “Insufficient Evidence” Points of Error, 38 Tex. Law Review 361.
Appellant apparently recognized that both of its points were “no evidence” points, in that its brief states: “Appellant has couched the point of error in this case in terms of ‘no evidence, or in the alternative, insufficient evidence’ because of the fact that in a case of this type there is a line of distinction which is not readily apparent. Although the courts speak in terms of insufficient evidence to warrant submission of the issue to the jury, it appears that such language might be equivalent to a statement that there is no evidence that the food was unwholesome or unfit for human consumption. In either event, however, whether the Court considers it a no evidence case or an insufficient evidence case, the result is the same.” Appellant prayed only that the judgment be rendered for it.
Our judgment reversing and remanding this case is therefore set aside and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

. “ ‘The Court erred in overruling defendant’s motions for instructed verdict and judgment n. o. v. and in entering judgment on the jury’s verdict because there was insufficient evidence that the damage to plaintiff’s beach house was covered by the policy sued upon in that there was insufficient-evidence that the damage was caused by the wind and insufficient evidence that it was not caused by water or the concurring action of wind with rising water and wind driven water’.”