Court Opinion

ID: 9641732
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 17:39:13.026615+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:39.466994
License: Public Domain

DAVIS, Justice. . ,
I dissent'from the finding of the majority in this case. When this Court reversed and remanded -this case,- Texarkana Bus Co. v. Carter, 292 S.W.2d 869, we first held that the verdict of the jury was so contrary, to the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence as to be manifestly unjust and clearly wrong. To. my mind, then-and now,-this was a holding by this Court that the jury verdict was prompted by-passion and prejudice, and the Court thought then and I think now,- that the testimony as quoted in, the original opinion fully supports our holding. . • • .
Following the finding that the verdict of the jury was so contrary-to the overwhelming preponderance of .the. evidence that it was manifestly- unjust and clearly wrong, the, Court then, held -that the verdict of the jury, was grossly excessive. Therefore, a. careful- study of that opinion will reveal; that the case was- reversed and remanded. solely upon the-ground that the verdict of-, the jury was so contrary to the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence as to be manifestly unjust and clearly wrong; the finding of excessiveness of necessity followed.’ On application for: writ of error, the Supreme Court remanded-the'Pause, stating that the provisions of' rule 440, T.R.C.P.,; formerly Article 1862,. R.C.S.1925, were applicable.' The Supreme Court, 295 S.W.2d 653, said that this Court: ■
* * remanded the cause for retrial-o'n the sole ground that the verdict in the amount of -$10,000 awarded to the plaintiff in the trial court is excessive and contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence(Emphasis mine.) The Supreme Court has instructed this Court to find, as a fact, the amount in which the verdict of the jury and judgment of the trial court is excessive, without regard to the fact that this Court has heretofore found as a fact that the verdict of the jury is so contrary to the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence as to be manifestly unjust and clearly wrong. It is my construction of Rule 440 that we should find the excessiveness of the verdict when the excessiveness is the “sole” and “only” error revealed by the record. The Supreme Court used the word “sole” in its opinion and points out that we reversed the case on two grounds: (1) That the jury verdict and judgment of the court being so contrary to the overwhelming preponderance, of the evidence as to be manifestly unjust and cleaoiy wrong; and (2) the excessiveness of the verdict. Webster defines the word “sole” (in reference to numbers) to be “single; being or acting without another; individual; only.” The word “only” as used in Rule 440, mean's: “Single; one alone; alone in its class; solitary; preeminent, - etc.” ■
As hereinabove pointed out, this Court, originally reversed and remanded this cause for multiple reasons. The Supreme Court remanded the case to this Court to find only the amount of the excessiveness of the verdict. There is a serious question in my mind as to the status of the case. This Court reversed the .same on the grounds that (1) the verdict of the jury was so'contrary to the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence as to be manifestly unjust and clearly wrong, aijd (2) excessiveness.' This Í say as humbly and earnestly as I know how, because the Su-' pfeme Court in the case of Barker v. Coastal Builders, 153 Tex. 540, 271 S.W.2d 798, 807,’by per-ciiriam-'opiriion, said:-' -
*303“In its motion for rehearing respondent points out that in its brief in . the Court of Civil Appeals it presented by separate assignments both the point that there was no evidence warranting the submission of Special Issue No. 1 to the jury, and the point that the finding of the jury in answer to that issue was against the overwhelming preponderamce of the evidence. Since the latter point presents a question of fact, this Court is without jurisdiction to decide it.’1 (Emphasis mine.)
In obedience to the mandate of the Supreme Court, the majority of this Court as now constituted has fixed the excessiveness of the verdict at a figure with which I just cannot, in good conscience, agree. In addition to the facts pointed out in the original opinion, I would like to point out that there is not one word of evidence in the case that the appellee ever suffered pain so severe from his alleged injuries that he had to take so much as one dose of any type of medicine to secure relief therefrom.
Therefore, in obedience to the order of the Supreme Court, I find that the verdict of the jury is excessive in the sum of $9,-500, and in doing so, I adopt the original opinion of this Court as the basis for my finding.
Addendum
CHADICK, Chief Justice.
In an opinion dated .March 28, 1957, this Court, on condition that a remittitur of $5,000 be made within 20 days, affirmed the judgment of the trial court. It now appears that on April 5, 1957, the appellee, Leslie Earl Carter, filed a remittitur in such amount in response thereto. Therefore the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
FANNING, J„ concurs. *
DAVIS, J., dissents.' ■< •-