Court Opinion

ID: 9761292
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 01:37:38.40444+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:21.783260
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
The original opinion herein was announced on March 22, 1965. On April 7, 1965, the Supreme Court of Texas granted a writ in our case of Watkins v. Southcrest Baptist Church, Tex.Civ.App., 385 S.W.2d 723. A motion for rehearing was filed in the instant case on April 12, 1965. Since the exact same question of charitable immunity was involved and that legal question would admittedly control the case so far as appellant, Northwest Texas Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, is concerned, this court concluded it was proper not to pass on the motion for rehearing pending in our court until the Supreme Court made a final disposition of the South-crest Baptist Church case. Their opinion was delivered on January 5, 1966, by a divided court, affirming this court, and is reported in Vol. 9, Texas Supreme Court Journal, beginning at Page 176. A motion for rehearing was refused on March 9, 1966.
Justice Norvell authored the majority opinion and was joined by four other justices without comment. Justice Walker concurred hut announced that as to him “ * * * the doctrine of charitable immunity will not be recognized in cases hereafter arising(All emphases ours.)
Justice Greenhill concurred in the majority opinion but warned all people and institutions relying on the established precedent that the doctrine should be re-examined in light of current conditions.
Chief Justice Calvert, joined by Justice Smith, dissented, stating:
“I would abolish it outright, preferably instanter, without distinction as to the nature or character of the various charitable organizations. I would agree to abolish it prospectively so that liability would attach only in cases arising hereafter. Finally, if driven to it, I would abolish it effective upon adjournment of the Regular Session of the 60th Legislature in 1967, thus permitting the Legislature to act in the matter if it wished to do so.”
By the use of the words, “hereafter arising” and “arising hereafter” used respectively by Justice Walker and Chief Justice Calvert we would assume they had reference to the initiating proceedings in courts of original jurisdiction rather than in those cases arising in their court. In any event, we feel we are obligated, to follow the majority. Accordingly, the motion for rehearing is overruled.