represented by Masterson driving the truck and ultimately striking McWilliams with it. True, a vehicle operated by a human struck McWilliams. Yet, what is meant by allusion to the absence of human intervention is not the absence of all human involvement but the absence of human negligence proximately causing the injury. That this is true is exemplified by the opinion in Luther Transfer & Storage, Inc. v. Walton, 156 Tex. 492, 296 S.W.2d 750 (1956). There, the Texas Supreme Court declared that “for a defendant to be relieved of liability for an unprecedented flood, there must be no negligence of the defendant concurring with the act of God to cause the damage resulting.” Id. at 753; accord, Macedonia Baptist Church v. Gibson, 883 S.W.2d 557, 560 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1992, writ denied) (<HOLDING>). So, that a human may have been involved does
holding that injuries covered by the act are not limited to external traumatic injuries holding that the limitation act does not apply to claims brought under the park system resource protection act holding that the plaintiff was not barred by hrs  3865 from seeking common law tort remedies against his insurer for injuries caused by the insurers  outrageous and intentional denial of medical benefits and disability payments  because such injuries were not  work injuries  within the scope of hrs chapter 386 holding that the injuries were not caused by an act of god since the lightning was channeled through an improperly installed lightning protection system holding under activity analysis contractors who designed and installed asbestos product were entitled to protection of statute of repose