Due- nezes moved for rehearing, asserting that the Court’s latest interpretation of the statute directly conflicts with Bomeman. A comparative submission, which the Court now requires in this case, presupposes that the provider's conduct is in issue. In this respect, the Court’s current holding certainly undermines, if not overrules, Bomeman. 5 . On the failure-to-submit issue, Chief Justice Cayce concurred in the result only, as he felt that the sixty-percent responsibility the jury placed on the plaintiff barred her recovery as a matter of law, rendering harmless any error in failing to submit the employer's negligence. Bedford, 166 S.W.3d at 456 (Cayce, C.J., concurring). 6 . See B & B Auto Supply, Sand Pit, & Trucking Co. v. Cent. Freight Lines, Inc., 603 S.W.2d 814, 817 (Tex.1980) (<HOLDING>). 7 . F.F.P. also contends the trial court
recognizing the right under federal maritime law to contribution or indemnity from another tortfeasor holding that the common law principle of vicarious liability applied to the tcpa because absent a clear expression of congressional intent to apply another standard the court must presume that congress intended to apply the traditional standards of vicarious liability with which it is presumed to be familiar holding that an indemnitee must be proven to be free of negligence in order to receive indemnity either under a general indemnity agreement or under implied indemnity holding that vicarious coconspirator liability need not be charged in the indictment recognizing common law right to indemnity when a partys liability is vicarious