Court Opinion

ID: 9832698
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:07:01.048664+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:50.315404
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
By leave of court, appellant has filed a supplemental brief, in which evidence shown in the statement of facts has been pointed out to support propositions appearing in its original brief, assigning error to the form of special issues Nos. 10 and 11 submitted to the jury, as pointed out in opinion on original hearing. One of the grounds for overruling the assignments, of error upon which those propositions were based was that they were not followed by any statement of facts from the record to support them, and we have considered the supplemental briefs with those omissions supplied from the same standpoint as if the statements now presented had been embodied in appellant’s original brief.
It is now insisted that the objection made by appellant at the time of the trial to special issue No. 10 submitted to the jury were sufficient to point out the alleged vice made the basis of the proposition, to the effect .that in referring the jury to plaintiff’s petition and requiring them to determine whether or not plaintiff sustained those injuries, instead of confining the inquiry to such injuries only as the evidence tended to prove, was error.
The allegations in plaintiff’s petition describing the injuries and suffering therefrom, alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiff, abound in repetition, and we shall not undertake to set them out in full. We deem it sufficient to say that they embodied complaints of injuries to plaintiff’s hips, arm, back, sciatic nerve, shock of nervous system, and as a result of all of which plaintiff sustained great physical suffering, and that she suffered abnormal menstruation and soreness in her abdomen, as a result of some of those injuries.
We have carefully reviewed the evidence shown in the statement of facts, and find that testimony was introduced sustaining all of those allegations in a general way, although perhaps lacking in some minor details. Appellant insists that there was no testimony to support the allegation that plaintiff’s left arm was “lacerated,” or that the muscles in her back were “torn” or “crushed in such a manner as to produce the derangement of her female organs,” nor the allegation that the “ligaments in her left hip were torn and bruised,” causing the “bones in the hip to become sep- - arated.” There was testimony that the plaintiff’s left arm was bruised, that she sustained injuries to her back, that her hip was injured, and that some of her injuries produced abnormal menstruation. And although there was no specific proof of a laceration of the arm, or of a tearing or crushing of the muscles in the back, or a tearing of the ligaments in the hip, or of the bones therein becoming separated, yet it is not reasonably probable that those allegations were considered by the jury in answering special issue No. 10.
Furthermore, we do not believe that the objections made at the time of the trial, noted in our original opinion to special issue No. 10, were sufficiently definite to point out to the trial judge the alleged vice discussed above, and thus afford him an opportunity to submit that issue in a different form. Isbell v. Lennox (Tex. Civ. App.) 224 S. W. 524; Id. (Tex. Sup.) 295 S. W. 920, and other authorities cited in our original opinion.
The assignment tó special issue No. 11, submitting the issue of measure of damages, has been again considered, and we adhere to the conclusions reached thereon in the original opinion.-
Motion for rehearing is overruled.