Arkla Exploration Co. v. Haywood, Rice & William Venture

I concur in the majority opinion and judgment, but I write separately to state why I also believe the jury’s finding that Arkla was negligent is against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence. Consequently, even if a rendition were not required, I would reverse the judgment and remand the cause for a new trial.

There is a recognized cause of action for negligent or reckless destruction of adjacent oil and gas reserves. Elliff v. Texon Drilling Co., 146 Tex. 576, 210 S.W.2d 558 (1948); 1 Eugene Kuntz, A TReatise on the Law of Oil and Gas §§ 4.5, 4.6 (1987). But to succeed in it, the…