Schuhmacher Co. v. Holcomb, 8193.
| Decision Date | 09 February 1944 |
| Docket Number | No. 8193.,8193. |
| Citation | 177 S.W.2d 951 |
| Parties | SCHUHMACHER CO. v. HOLCOMB et al. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Paul B. Holcomb, for himself and as next friend of his minor daughter, Maurine Holcomb, sued petitioner, the Schuhmacher Company, for damages for injuries sustained as the result of a collision between the automobile in which the Holcombs were riding and a truck belonging to petitioner and being operated by one of its employees. In response to special issues the jury found that the collision and resulting injuries were proximately caused by the negligence of petitioner's driver (a) in driving the truck down the middle of the bridge where the collision occurred rather than on the right-hand side thereof, and (b) in failing to keep a proper lookout prior to and at the time of the collision. In answer to other special issues the jury found that Holcomb, the driver of the automobile, was negligent in certain particulars, hereafter to be set out, which acts of negligence were also proximate causes, but not sole proximate causes, of the injuries. Upon the verdict judgment was rendered denying any recovery to Mr. Holcomb, but awarding to his daughter, Maurine Holcomb, a recovery of $500. The petitioner appealed from that portion of the judgment awarding a recovery to Maurine Holcomb, but Paul B. Holcomb did not appeal. In the Court of Civil Appeals the case was affirmed, 174 S. W.2d 637.
One of the main contentions presented in this court is that the Court of Civil Appeals erred in holding that, as a matter of law, the negligence of Paul B. Holcomb, the driver of the automobile, was not attributable to his daughter, Maurine Holcomb, under the doctrine of joint enterprise. The opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals discusses that question at some length. We have considered that opinion in the light of the application for writ of error and have concluded that it correctly disposes of this question upon grounds heretofore sanctioned by this court in the authorities cited and we therefore approve that holding without writing further upon the question. The evidence does not raise the fact issue that Maurine Holcomb was engaged in a joint enterprise with her father. She was his guest.
The petitioner requested the trial court to submit special issues relating to the contributory negligence of Paul B. Holcomb; (1) in failing "to have the brakes on said automobile in good working order," and (2) "in causing his automobile to move to and upon his left-hand side of the highway," together with the related issues of negligence, proximate cause and sole proximate cause. Of the special issues requested, the issues with which we are concerned are those submitting the question of sole proximate cause. This is true for the reason that Paul B. Holcomb was denied recovery upon other findings of the jury that his negligence was a proximate cause of the collision, which judgment has become final, and under the holding above made that Maurine Holcomb was not engaged in a joint enterprise with her father, only a finding that her father's negligence was the sole proximate cause of her injuries would preclude her from recovering against the petitioner.
In order to understand the background upon which the trial court based its ruling refusing to submit the requested issues this brief statement will be made: The truck belonging to petitioner was being driven north across a bridge spanning the Colorado river near Columbus,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Barclay v. C. C. Pitts Sand & Gravel Co.
...and different shades of meaning of one ultimate * * * fact issue, that is, lack of proper control * * *.' In Schuhmacher Co. v. Holcomb, 142 Tex. 332, 177 S.W.2d 951 (1944) this Court in effect held that the questions of whether the defendant failed to have the brakes of his automobile in g......
-
Younger Bros. v. Marino
...upholdings its second prong, these two Texas holdings: Dixie Motor Coach Corp. v. Galvan, 126 Tex. 109, 86 S.W.2d 633; Schuhmacher v. Holcomb, 142 Tex. 332, 177 S.W.2d 951. It is not thought that these cited holdings from other jurisdictions rule the facts and findings in this cause; to the......
-
Dallas Ry. & Terminal Co. v. Bailey
...v. Bragg, Tex.Com.App., 2 S.W.2d 276; Dixie Motor Coach Corp. v. Galvan et ux., 126 Tex. 109, 86 S.W.2d 633; Schuhmacher Co. v. Holcomb, 142 Tex. 332, 177 S.W.2d 951. On the contrary, it is governed by the rule expressed by this court in the case of City of Panhandle v. Byrd, 130 Tex. 96, 1......
-
Garner v. Prescott
...show that the emergency was the creation of appellant's driver nor that it should have been anticipated. See Schuhmacher v. Holcomb, 142 Tex. 332, 177 S.W.2d 951, 953; Blanton v. E. & L. Transport Co., 146 Tex. 377, 207 S.W.2d 368 and Mitchell v. Gooch, Tex.Civ.App., 210 S.W.2d 834. The jur......