Court Opinion

ID: 9654976
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 18:56:43.419162+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:15.156839
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
Appellants W.D. Johnson and Sally Johnson and appellee Robert Harold Peret have filed motions for rehearing. The Johnsons request reconsideration of their first point of error, by which they contend they conclusively established an additional act of negligence by Husband. We have reviewed our disposition of the contention but remain convinced that additional acts of negligence by Husband are immaterial within the context of this case. Therefore, the Johnsons’ motion for rehearing is overruled.
Peret points out in his motion, correctly, that although he was an appellee we did not articulate his status in our judgment. He also points out, correctly, that the jury absolved him of any negligence, the trial court rendered a take nothing judgment in his favor, and no claims were advanced against him in this Court. Thus he says, and we .agree, that the trial court’s judgment must be affirmed as to him. Lott v. Lott, 370 S.W.2d 463, 465 (Tex.1963).
Therefore, Peret’s motion for rehearing is granted and the judgment of this court is amended to provide that the trial court’s take nothing judgment in favor of Robert *648Harold Peret is affirmed and no party to this case is entitled to any recovery against Robert Harold Peret because of the events upon which this case is based. Except as amended herein, the judgment of this court issued pursuant to our opinion of April 30, 1987, remains intact.