dissenting.
I would affirm the judgment of the trial court with regard to all of the appellees.
The majority concedes that neither Goo-den, nor Flynn, nor any other Texas case has extended a physician’s duty to the general public to warn his patients not to drive, unless the physician’s own actions have caused the dangerous condition exhibited by his patient. I find no evidence in the present proceeding which shows that any of the ap-pellees did any act that caused Peterson’s epileptic condition or seizure, or contributed to the injuries suffered by Terri Lynn Prae-sel, or to the damages suffered by Stan Praesel and/or Louise Herbert.
Moreover, Dr. Wendenburg, whom the majority would send back for trial, was never consulted on the treatment of epilepsy, but rather was informed that this illness was being treated by other physicians. Dr. Wen-denburg treated Peterson solely by surgery for injuries to his spine as a result of an injury sustained when he was rear-ended in an automobile accident. Dr. Wendenburg had no duty to Peterson concerning the treatment of epilepsy since he was never consulted or employed for the care or treatment of this illness.
Accordingly, I would overrule all of appellants’ points of error and affirm the judgment of the trial court.