Court Opinion

ID: 9671419
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:36:21.52546+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:10.002703
License: Public Domain

HUGHES, Justice
(dissenting).
Appellant’s first Point of Error is that, “As a matter of law the request by plaintiff that Doris Purser be allowed to drive the pickup should not bar his recovery for her negligence.” The jury had found that appellant was negligent in this respect.
Under this point appellant contends that no liability could be imposed upon him by such request “unless the driver is incompetent. There is no evidence in this record that defendant Purser was incompetent to drive the pickup.” 1
*300Assuming1 that this point is adequate to raise the issue of “no evidence” to support the jury finding that appellee was an incompetent driver on the occasion in suit, I do not find that the majority opinion has expressly disposed of this point. It may have sustained this point by implication. One reason for saying this is that the rule used by the Court, upon which it predicates remand, is applicable only in deciding “no evidence” issues.2 Another reason is that no evidence of probative value is referred to as sustaining such finding.
If the majority has sustained the “no evidence” point, then judgment, in my opinion, should have been reversed and rendered for appellant. While we have authority under Rules 434 and SOS, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure to remand a cause rather than render judgment which the Trial Court should have rendered, this should only be done in the interest of justice. No such reason appears here, and appellee does not so contend.3
If the majority has not ruled upon the “no evidence” point, then, in my opinion, it should do so.
In my opinion, there is no evidence to sustain the findings of the jury that appellant was negligent in requesting appellee to drive the pickup and that appellee was an incompetent driver on the occasion in suit.4 I would reverse and render judgment for appellant in the amount of damages found by the jury. I, therefore, respectfully dissent.

. Appellant also has points to the effect that jury findings that Doris Purser was not, on this occasion, a competent driver, that appellant was negligent in request*300ing her to drive the pickup and that a finding of proximate cause as to these findings were against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence.

.The Court states “In viewing the evidence and inferences in the record before us in the light most favorable to defendant Purser and disregarding all evidence to the contrary, we find that there is insufficient evidence to support the findings in her behalf described above and must remand this case for a new trial in accordance with this opinion.” This is the “no evidence rule.” 38 Tex.Law Rev., p. 361, “No Evidence” and “Insufficient Evidence” by Chief Justice Robert W. Calvert.

. As to this see pp. 368-369, authority cited in footnote 1. See also Benoit v. Wilson, 150 Tex. 273, 239 S.W.2d 792.

. Similarly, I would sustain appellant’s “no evidence” points to jury findings that appellant failed to keep a proper lookout.