Court Opinion

ID: 9863059
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 03:00:54.96945+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:46:45.426033
License: Public Domain

On Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing.
HAMILTON, Chief Justice.
I respectfully dissent from the overruling of appellant’s motion for rehearing by the majority of the court. In our original disposition of this case, I believe the court fell in error in holding that the requested instruction submitted to the court by appellant in connection with Special Issue No. 10 was not substantially correct. Our reason given for holding such requested instruction incorrect was that it “prohibited any allowance for aggravation of either prior or subsequent injuries by the injuries in [this] suit.” After careful consideration of appellant’s motion for rehearing and reviewing the whole case, I believe that such requested instruction was substantially* correct. There was no allegation or evidence that the injuries in the suit aggravated the prior injury received in the accident of .1951, and appellee could not have been harmed in- any manner by the submission of the requested instruction. Certainly ap-pellee was not entitled to recover for increased damage caused by subsequent injuries. The very purpose of such an instruction as was requested was to preclude such a recovery.
I believe the motion for rehearing-should be granted and the judgment of the trial court reversed, and the cause remanded for trial because of the error of the trial court in refusing to submit appellant’s requested instruction discussed in our original opinion.