Court Opinion

ID: 9680085
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 07:19:17.2261+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:25.336937
License: Public Domain

HALL, Justice
(concurring).
I concur in the affirmance.
The voir dire in question was clearly improper. However, I agree that the harm caused by it was curable in this case by timely objections coupled with instructions by the court to the jury to disregard it; and that without a showing of such objections and requests for the instructions by the appellant, and incorrect rulings thereon by the court, the record does not reflect reversible error relating to the voir dire. Turner v. Turner, 385 S.W.2d 230, 237 (Tex.Sup., 1965); Texas Employers’ Ins. Ass’n v. Haywood, 153 Tex. 242, 266 S.W.2d 856, 858 (1954).
I agree also that the appellant’s requested issue is a different phase or shade of submitted issues nos. five, six, and seven. Findings on the appellant’s defensive theories of periods of temporary total incapacity intermittently broken by periods of partial incapacity or no incapacity could have been made in answers to these issues and issues nos. eight, nine, and ten if the jury had determined to do so. Accordingly, the court’s refusal to submit the requested issue was not error. Rule 279, Vernon’s Tex. Rules Civ.Proc.
It is for these reasons only that I join the majority in overruling the appellant’s complaints relating to the jury voir dire and the court’s charge.