## Facts

- Cage Brothers and Cecil Ruby Contracting Co. operated a hard-limestone quarry and conducted frequent dynamite blasting.
- Four nearby homeowners alleged the blasting caused cracks and other structural damage to their houses.
- Evidence described daily blasting over about six months, with strong tremors and shaking.
- Testimony indicated debris and rocks were thrown beyond the quarry’s boundaries.
- Homeowners complained during the blasting period; operations continued.
- Plaintiffs presented expert testimony that seismograph testing could have been used to gauge and control effects, that no such testing occurred, and that blasting caused the damage.
- Defendants presented conflicting expert testimony disputing negligence and/or causation.
- The jury found defendants negligent (including using an excessive amount of dynamite), found proximate cause, and awarded damages; the trial court entered judgment on the verdict.

## Issues

1. Whether an order denying judgment non obstante veredicto (JNOV) is independently appealable, or whether review must be taken from the final judgment.
2. Whether the record contained “some evidence” of probative force supporting the jury’s negligence and proximate-cause findings, such that an instructed verdict or JNOV for defendants was improper.

## Decision

- The appellate court treated the appeal as taken from the final judgment, not from the interlocutory order denying JNOV.
- Applying the “some evidence” standard and viewing evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, the court held there was evidence supporting negligence and causation.
- The court affirmed the trial court’s judgment for the homeowners.

## Legal Principles

- An order denying JNOV is interlocutory and not independently appealable; appeal lies from the final judgment.
- On a “no-evidence” challenge to the denial of an instructed verdict or JNOV, the reviewing court considers the evidence most favorably to the verdict, disregards conflicts, and draws reasonable inferences supporting the verdict.
- Blasting-damage claims may proceed on ordinary negligence principles; plaintiffs must present evidence of lack of ordinary care (e.g., excessive explosives or failure to take reasonable precautions) and proximate causation.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed damages for neighboring homeowners because the record contained some evidence that the quarry’s blasting was conducted negligently and proximately caused property damage, and it clarified that denial of JNOV is not itself appealable apart from an appeal from the final judgment.


Cage Bros. & Cecil Ruby Contracting Co. v. McCormick, 344 S.W.2d 203 (Tex. Civ. App.—San Antonio 1961)