# Webb v. Jorns

> Court of Appeals of Texas · October 10, 1975 · 530 S.W.2d 847

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9761721

## Case

- **Full name:** Robert WEBB Et Al., Appellants, v. Dr. Kenneth L. JORNS Et Al., Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** October 10, 1975
- **Citations:** 530 S.W.2d 847; 1975 Tex. App. LEXIS 3116
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** On rehearing
- **Judges:** Massey
- **Cited by:** 7 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9761721

## Opinion text

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
Plaintiffs’ counsel has pointed out that in the original opinion we failed to pass upon points of error whereby there was complaint because of the exclusion, on trial, of testimony from their expert witnesses, Drs. Dannemiller and Taylor, relative to the manufacturer’s recommendations for the unit flow of gas required in the use of Halothane.
It is true that we overlooked writing thereupon. We did give the matter consideration as will be observed at the very beginning of the section of the opinion where we noted complaints concerning rulings of the court by which there was exclusion of evidence which the plaintiffs desired to have before the jury. We did fail to specifically rule on the particular complaints).
Relative thereto we remark that, as evidenced in the prior opinion, there is no doubt that the jury had before it by undisputed evidence the manufacturer’s recommendations for the unit flow of gas. Testimony received left no doubt in the minds of the jury that plaintiffs’ expert witnesses were of the opinion that to use such procedure as recommended by the manufacturer — without necessity of reference to the manufacturer’s material by which those recommendations were evidenced — was correct procedure. Nor was the jury left in doubt that such witnesses were of the expert opinion that the procedure to which there was resort in the instant case was improper.
The points of error are overruled as constituting “harmless error”. T.R.C.P. 434, “If Judgment Reversed”.
*859 On rehearing we have also reconsidered all those points of error, in addition to those presenting complaint here written upon, which plaintiffs contend were not passed upon. These we have concluded to be without merit and are all overruled.
Motion for rehearing is overruled.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9761721. Public record. Not legal advice.