Court Opinion

ID: 9759662
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 00:24:11.604261+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:03.911567
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing
Appellee Anderson has filed a motion for rehearing, asserting we erred in holding there was evidence to support the jury’s findings that Mrs. Anderson’s failure to keep a proper lookout and her failure to turn her automobile to the right were each a proximate cause of the collision, and the Trial Court therefore erred in disregarding such findings and in rendering judgment for Anderson,
We adhere to the holding that there was evidence of probative value supporting the jury’s findings and that the Trial Court erred in disregarding such findings.
Complaint is further made that we reversed and rendered judgment, it being contended by appellee that we should have at the most only reversed the case with directions to the Trial Court to enter judgment for Bardwell on the verdict, and that Anderson should then be allowed to file a motion for new trial setting up jury misconduct and that the findings of the jury that Mrs. Anderson’s failure to keep a proper lookout and her failure to turn her automobile to the right were each a proximate cause of the collision are so against the overwhelming weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be clearly wrong.
We have reviewed the record and find that after the jury returned its verdict, ap-pellee Anderson made a “motion for mistrial” based on jury misconduct as discussed in our original opinion, and, in the alternative, that the Court disregard the jury’s findings that Mrs. Anderson’s negligence was a proximate cause of the collision because there was no evidence to support such findings. The Trial Court gave a full hearing on the issue of jury misconduct and, after hearing the testimony of the jurors, overruled the motion for mistrial asserting jury misconduct. On the same day the Court entered a judgment for Anderson after finding there was no evidence to support the jury’s findings that Mrs. Anderson’s negligence was a proximate cause of the collision.
On appeal to this Court, appellee, while arguing in support of the judgment rendered in his favor, asserted Cross-Points of Error. One Cross-Point asserted error on the part of the Trial Court in overruling its assertion of jury misconduct and the other asserted he was entitled to a new trial because the jury’s findings that Mrs. Anderson’s negligence was a proximate cause of the collision were against the overwhelming weight and preponderance of the evidence. The briefs for both ap-pellee and appellant were confined to a discussion of the merits of these Cross-Points. We discussed the Cross-Points on the merits and overruled them.
In the motion for rehearing, for the first time, it is urged that under Rule 324, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, as it existed at the time this case was tried in the Trial Court, and as it existed when the transcript and statement of facts were filed in this Court, we should not ourselves pass on the merits of the Cross-Points, but should send the case back to the Trial Court so that Anderson could file his motion for new trial setting up the subject-matter of his Cross-Points, and allow the Trial Court to pass upon the matter.
Under the holding of the Supreme Court in the case of De Winne v. Allen, 154 Tex. 316, 277 S.W.2d 95, Rule 324, T.R.C.P., as it existed at the time this case was tried and at the time the transcript and statement of facts were filed in this Court, an appellee in favor of whom a judgment had been rendered was authorized to complain by Cross-Points of Error of proceedings in the Trial Court that would entitle him to a new trial if motion for new trial were filed in the Trial Court. It was held that *938in case of such Cross-Points, should the appellate court determine that the Trial Court had erred in disregarding the jury’s verdict, or some of its answers, and had entered erroneously a judgment non ob-stante veredicto, or erroneously entered a judgment for appellee after disregarding some jury answers, the case should be reversed with directions to enter judgment on the verdict, with the right of the appellee to file a motion for new trial setting up jury misconduct and that the answers of the jury were against the overwhelming weight and preponderance of the evidence. The reasoning of the Court was that an appellee, where a judgment has been rendered in his favor, has had no occasion or opportunity to raise in the Trial Court the question of “any prejudicial error committed against him over his objection” on the trial with respect to such matters. The Supreme Court then held that a remand to the Trial Court for a consideration by that Court of any matter upon which the Trial Court had not passed was in harmony with our concept of the role of the trial judge and the theory of appellate review.
Rule 324, as it was amended, became effective September 1, 1957. Under the rule as it now exists where an appeal is taken from a judgment of a trial court, which trial court judgment was rendered non obstante veredicto, or, in favor of the appellee after the trial court had, on proper motion, disregarded certain answers of the jury, and the appellee wishes to assert a ground that would vitiate the verdict or prevent affirmance of the judgment of the trial court had it been a judgment entered in harmony with the verdict, in the event the appellate court should hold the trial court erroneously entered judgment non obstante veredicto, or, after disregarding certain of the jury’s answers, he must set up his complaint by a cross-point. If he fails to do so, his complaint is waived, except where his complaint is of jury misconduct or some other matter requiring the taking of testimony. The evident purpose of the rule is to avoid the holding in De Winne v. Allen, supra, so as to allow an appellate court to decide in one appeal all alleged errors that could affect the judgment that show of record in the appellate court.
Under this rule, where the appellate court determines the trial court, as we have here held, erroneously disregarded certain jury answers and then entered judgment contrary to the verdict as it included such answers, or rendered judgment non obstante veredicto, and appellee has cross-points, as in this appeal, asserting that the answers of the jury to the issues disregarded are against the overwhelming weight and preponderance of the evidence, the case will not be remanded to the trial court for that court to resolve -the matter, but the Court of Civil Appeals will determine the issue on a basis of the record before it. Of course, in the case of a complaint about a matter such as jury misconduct which requires the taking of testimony, the court will, except in an exceptional situation such as we have here, remand to the trial court for the taking of testimony and so the trial court can first pass on the matter.
In his motion for rehearing, as well as in his brief on original submission, appellee rather assumes this is the effect of Rule 324, as amended, but on motion for rehearing he contends the rule as it existed before its amendment is applicable in this case because the case was tried before the effective date of the amendment and the transcript and statement of facts were filed in this Court before the effective date of the amendment.
The. transcript was filed in this Court August 2, 1957. The statement of facts was filed here August 9, 1957. Appellant, under Rule 414, T.R.C.P., would, in the absence of an extension of time, have been required to file his brief within thirty days, or on or before September 8, 1957. The appellee would have, under said rule, been required to file his brief containing his reply and any cross-points he desired to assert within *939twenty-five days thereafter, or on or before October 3. Actually, on an agreed motion, appellant obtained an extension of time to file his brief, and did so February 12, 1958, and appellee filed his brief March 10, 1958. The result is that the amendment to Rule 324 was effective prior to the time ap-pellee would have been required to file his brief containing his Cross-Points.
There is nothing in the rule, or the order promulgating it, stating whether it shall be applicable to pending litigation or only to future cases. The general rule is that in the absence of an express intention to the contrary, legislation dealing with a procedural matter applies to pending litigation to the extent that subsequent steps in the case are to be taken under the new rule. Past steps taken under a rule or statute will not be affected, but subsequent steps will be governed by the new rule provided a reasonable time is afforded in which to take them. A remedy must not be denied by entirely eliminating it or be so unduly limited as to amount to a denial of it, such as by changing the time within which it may be resorted to so that it cannot as a practical matter be asserted. Walker v. Lyles, Tex.Civ.App., 45 S.W.2d 315, affirmed Tex.Com.App., 124 Tex. 38, 72 S.W.2d 1113; Phil H. Pierce Co. v. Watkins, 114 Tex. 153, 263 S.W. 905; Hunter v. Moore, Tex.Com.App., 122 Tex. 583, 62 S.W.2d 97; Red v. Bounds, Tex.Com.App., 122 Tex. 614, 63 S.W.2d 544.
Rule 324 provides for cross-points to be assigned in the brief of appellee and the amendment was effective over thirty days before appellee was required to file his brief, if appellant took the time allowed in which to file his brief, which appellant did. Appellee has been cut off from no remedy by the amendment. The rule merely changes the forum in which the complaint is passed on from the trial court to the appellate court, except as to matters such as jury misconduct. We hold, therefore, that appellee’s Cross-Points asserting that the jury’s answers finding Mrs. Anderson’s negligence to be against the overwhelming weight and preponderance of the evidence were properly disposed of by us under Rule 324, as amended, and there should not be a remand to allow the Trial Court to pass on such issue.
Under Rule 324, where by Cross-Point an appellee asserts jury misconduct and asks for a remand of the case so that evidence may be heard, it would be necessary to remand the case if no evidence had been heard. Plowever, in this case appellee filed his motion for mistrial in the Trial Court asserting jury misconduct. He was accorded a full hearing by the Court and after the Court had heard all jurors testify, the motion was overruled. The testimony was brought up as a part of the record. The parties both briefed the issue on the merits. Appellee is not entitled to a second ruling by the Trial Court.
Appellee has cited us the following cases, which he contends support his position that we should apply Rule 324 prior to its amendment: Le Master v. Ft. Worth Transit Co., 138 Tex. 512, 160 S.W.2d 224; Happ v. Happ, Tex.Civ.App., 160 S.W.2d 227, writ ref., w. m.; Insurors Indemnity & Ins. Co. v. Associated Indemnity Corp., 139 Tex. 286, 162 S.W.2d 666, and Thomas v. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co., Tex.Civ.App., 305 S.W.2d 642, writ ref., n. r. e.
In the Le Master case the Supreme Court followed the procedure employed under Article 2211, V.A.T.S., which was in existence when the case was tried, and remanded the case to the trial court to allow a motion for new trial and refused to apply Rule 324, which became effective September 1, 1941, though Rule 324 had become effective prior to February 18, 1942, the date the Supreme Court handed down its decision. Under the rule, as construed by that Court, it was necessary for an appellee to include cross-points in his brief to have thém considered by the appellate court, whereas it was not necessary under the practice before Rule 324. We gather from the opinion that ap-pellee had not asserted any cross-points. The Court said the case was tried and ap*940pealed before Rule 324 became effective. We observe that the Court of Civil Appeals rendered its decision April 12, 1940, and overruled a motion for rehearing September 6, 1940. The new rule became effective, as above stated, September 1, 1941. When the Supreme Court said the case was appealed before the effective date of the rule, it meant that steps had already been taken and the appeal in the Court of Civil Appeals had been disposed of under the old statute before Rule 324 had become effective. Had the new rule been applied, it would have been applied retroactively so as to deprive the appellee of any remedy to obtain a review of his complaint that the jury’s answers were against the overwhelming weight and preponderance of the evidence. What the Court really held was that it would not apply a new rule to procedural steps taken prior to the effective date of the new rule where to do so would effectively deprive the party of any remedy for correcting an error. The effect is not to say that the new rule will not apply to steps to be taken after it became effective, if sufficient opportunity is allowed by the new rule to take the steps.
We, in our holding that Rule 324, as amended, applies here, do not give any retroactive effect to the rule, as amended, and -we do not curtail or cut off any remedy. We give prospective effect to the amended rule which effectively, under the facts of this case, gives appellee a forum, though a different one, in which to obtain an appraisal of his assertion that the disregarded answers of the jury are against the overwhelming weight and preponderance of the evidence.
In the case of Happ v. Happ, supra, the Court of Civil Appeals actually applied the new rule which was effective after the case was tried, but before the appeal was disposed of. The Court, in its opinion, we think, gave the same construction to the Le Master case which we give it, that is, the rule will not be applied to steps taken before its effective date that would work an obvious prejudice to a party. We feel the case actually supports our holding, because it appears that appellee had actually included in his brief a Cross-Point that certain answers of the jury were against the overwhelming weight and preponderance of the evidence. Before Rule 324, it was unnecessary to assert cross-points and if the trial court erred in its judgment rendered out of harmony with the verdict, the case would be reversed and remanded to allow appellee to file a motion for new trial. Rule 324 as originally promulgated, the court interpreted to mean that if there were cross-points filed by appellee, the appellate court would pass on these points on the merits. In the Plapp case the Court of Civil Appeals did not apply the old rule and send the case back to the trial court so a motion for new trial could be filed, but passed on the cross-point on its merits and reversed and remanded the case for retrial on the merits. Thus, the Court applied Rule 324 instead of the practice under Article 2211 as to steps taken after the rule became effective.
In Insurers Indemnity & Ins. Co. v. Associated Indemnity Corp., supra, the Court applied the procedure under Article 2211, though when the Supreme Court decided the case in April of 1942 Rule 324 was in effect. However, the case was decided by the Court of Civil Appeals before the effective date of Rule 324. Old Rule 71a, requiring a motion for new trial as a prerequisite to an appeal except in certain instances, was applied instead of Rule 324. However, at the time for filing a motion for •new trial and at the time the case was disposed of in the Court of Civil Appeals, Rule 324 had not become effective.
The case of Thomas v. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co., supra, which applied Rule 324 before the amendment of September 1, 1957, was decided by the Court of Civil Appeals September 19, 1957. The probability is that it was briefed and submitted prior to the effective date of Rule 324, as amended. In any event, no issue over which rule would apply was raised in the case.
On the merits of appellee’s Cross-Point that the jury’s answers finding Mrs. *941Anderson’s negligence to be a proximate cause of the injury, we have again reviewed the testimony. The whole record has been considered. Though a court, had its members been jurors, might have reached a different conclusion from the jury, it may not substitute its judgment for that of the jury. The test is whether, based on the whole record, we can say that the answers are so against the overwhelming weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be manifestly unjust or clearly wrong. We are unable to reach such a conclusion. Continental Bus System, Inc. v. Biggers, Tex.Civ.App., 322 S.W.2d 1, writ ref., n. r. e.
Appellee’s motion for rehearing is overruled.
On Appellee’s Second Motion for Rehearing
Appellee has filed his second motion for rehearing, reasserting his position that we should have reversed and remanded this cause so as to allow him to file his motion for new trial asserting the jury’s answers which found two of Mrs. Anderson’s acts of negligence to be proximate causes of the collision were against the overwhelming weight and preponderance of the evidence. He insists that he has the right to have the trial court pass on this and that we should only exercise appellate review on the matter since the case was tried before Rule 324, T.R.C.P., as amended became effective.
We have completely re-examined the question but are unable to reach the conclusion contended for by appellee.
Appellee correctly points out an inaccuracy in our opinion on motion for rehearing. We there stated it was on motion for rehearing that for the first time appellee contended we should reverse and remand the case to allow the trial court to pass on the matter. The brief of appellee did not ask that the case be reversed and remanded to allow the trial court to pass on this matter. However, in a letter brief to the Court, filed after submission of the cause, in response to a question asked on submission by the author of this opinion, appellee cited De Winne v. Allen, 154 Tex. 316, 277 S.W.2d 95, and other cases, and asserted we had the power to reverse and remand the case so the trial court could pass on the matter. We, however, deem this not determinative of the issue.
We have re-examined the cross-points on their merits and remain of the view that the jury’s answers were not so contrary to the overwhelming weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be clearly wrong.
Appellee’s motion for rehearing is overruled.