Kujawa v. Associated Indem. Corp.

• Decision Date: 30 April 1953
• Docket Number: No. 12569,12569
• Parties: KUJAWA v. ASSOCIATED INDEMNITY CORP.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

Page 344

258 S.W.2d 344

KUJAWA v. ASSOCIATED INDEMNITY CORP.

No. 12569.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, Galveston.

April 30, 1953.

Rehearing Denied June 4, 1953.

Peter P. Cheswick, of Houston, for appellant.

Fulbright, Crooker, Freeman & Bates, Kraft W. Eidman and Quentin Bates, of Houston, for appellee.

GRAVES, Justice.

This was a suit under the Workmen's Compensation Law of Texas, Vernon's Ann.Civ.St. art. 8306 et seq.; for total and permanent disability. After a trial before a jury, on special issues, a verdict in favor of appellant for such total and permanent disability was returned; the verdict was accepted by the court, and ordered filed.

There were no conflicting findings. The appellee filed its motions, in apt time, for an instructed verdict in its favor, which motions were overruled by the court.

Both parties filed motions for judgment on the verdict, the appellee contending in its motion, in general terms, that judgment in its favor ought to be entered, non abstante veredicto.

The trial court sustained appellee's motion, and rendered judgment, non obstante verdicto, in its favor.

In the state of the record brought here, it is held that the trial court erred in so nullifying the proceedings before the jury there, and rendering a judgment on its own findings instead.

There were both pleadings and evidence sufficient to sustain the very full findings of the jury in appellant's favor; indeed, there were no conflicts in such findings, hence, under what this Court conceives to be well-settled holdings of our Supreme Court, the trial court in the circumstances so confronting it was without legal authority to do other than, (1) to enter a judgment for the plaintiff below (appellant here), (2) to declare a mistrial of the cause, or (3) to grant a new trial, but could not ignore such a verdict and render the judgment it did, notwithstanding it. Williams v. Wyrick, Tex.Sup., 245 S.W.2d 961, affirming, Tex.Civ.App., 242 S.W.2d 669; Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Canty, 115 Tex. 537, 285 S.W. 296; Hammond v. Eplen, Tex.Civ.App., 216 S.W.2d 258; LeMaster v. Fort Worth Transit Co., 138 Tex. 512, 160 S.W.2d 224, 226; Buchanan v. Davis, Tex.Civ.App., 300 S.W. 985, affirmed by Supreme Court, 12 S.W.2d 978; City of Austin v. Salazar, Tex.Civ.App., 241 S.W.2d 445, n. r. e.; Myers v. Crenshaw, 134 Tex. 500, 137 S.W.2d 7, 13; Rule 301, T.R.C.P.

Undoubtedly, it is thought, under his pleadings and testimony, which was from both medical and lay witnesses, the issues-of-fact propounded to the jury, upon which he based his claim for total and permanent disability resulting from a claimed injury to his face and eye, while in the course of his...