Court Opinion

ID: 9766022
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 04:28:49.571856+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:18.503805
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
HUGHES, Justice.
Appellee denies our statement that, “It is admitted by both parties to this lawsuit that the original testimony of C. W. Hudson as to the method he always operated his car at the intersection was inadmissible.”
We based this statement, as to appellee, on this language in his brief:
“Appellee concedes that such testimony by the witness Walter Wallace could not have been initially admitted as proof of appellant’s habit in crossing the intersection to show probably present conduct, but when appellant unequivocally asserts that his conduct on the day in question was his habitual conduct, the issue of irrelevance has also been effectively removed. Appel-lee was not trying to establish present conduct by past habit or custom, but simply rebutting, for impeachment purposes, appellant’s assertion that he always slowed up at this intersection. The two examples are worlds apart and do not involve the same rule of law. Appellant is confusing the two issues by asserting that the impeachment attempts to inject collateral issues or collateral conduct into the case. No citation of legal principles or authorities is necessary, we think, to demonstrate such fallacy. Appellee contends that the controverted testimony would actually be admissible for unlimited purposes were it not for the Texas rule against proof of custom or habit in this manner, so therefore it could not be excluded as impeachment because immaterial, irrelevant or collateral matter.”
*50Regardless of appellee’s admission, the testimony of C. W. Hudson as to the usual manner in which he drove his car through the intersection was inadmissible since there were eyewitnesses to the collision. M. K. & T. Ry. Co. v. McFerrin, 156 Tex. 69, 291 S.W.2d 931.
The fact that this testimony was admitted without objection did not, in our opinion, give appellee the right to introduce impeaching evidence. The policy issues involved in trying collateral issues should not be controlled by or made to depend upon the alertness of counsel.
Upon examination of the entire record, it is our opinion that reversible error was committed by the trial court in this respect. Rule 434, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
The motion is overruled.
Motion overruled.