Court Opinion

ID: 9831335
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:00:45.499537+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:33.745075
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Upon careful consideration of appellees’ motion for rehearing, we have reached the conclusion that we were in error in holding that appellant’s special charge on contributory negligence should have been given. As held in our original opinion, if appellees knew of the damaged condition of the hulls, or if such condition was obvious, then appellees would be precluded from recovering for injuries to their cattle caused by the subsequent feeding of the hulls to them.
But there was no duty resting on appellees to inspect the hulls to determine their quality as cattle feed. They had the right to rely both upon appellant’s express warranty of soundness and upon the assumption that the hulls were serviceable for the purposes for which they were sold. The special charge is susceptible of the construction, at least by 'inference, that some duty of inspection rested upon appellees, and for that reason it was properly refused. To this extent our original opinion is modified, and reversal of the trial court’s judgment is rested solely upon the error of the trial court in special issue No. 4, as pointed out in our original opinion.
Appellees’ motion for rehearing is accordingly overruled.
Opinion modified and motion overruled.