Joe D. Hughes, Inc. v. Moran
| Citation | 325 S.W.2d 829 |
| Decision Date | 05 June 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 16016,16016 |
| Parties | JOE D. HUGHES, INC., et al., Appellants, v. Thomas Donald MORAN et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Civil Appeals of Texas |
Vinson, Elkins, Weems & Searls, thomas B. Weatherly and Gaius G. Gannon, Jr., Houston, for appellant.
Miller, McClure, Lucas & Wright, Ralph K. Miller and James H. Wright, Houston, for appellee.
A passenger car driven by Mrs. Moran was involved in an intersection collision with a pickup truck owned by Joe D. Hughes, Inc., and driven by Bobby Gene Malone.
The Morans sued Hughes, Inc., and Malone for damages for injuries sustained by Mrs. Moran.
The jury found Malone guilty of six acts of negligence, each of which was found to be a proximate cause of the collision.
In answer to issues 17 and 18 the jury found that Mrs. Moran failed to keep a proper lookout and such failure was a proximate cause. The answers to issues 24 and 25 found the failure of Mrs. Moran to slow the speed of her car to be a proximate cause, and issues 26, 27 and 28 found the failure of Mrs. Moran to timely apply her brakes to be negligence and proximate cause.
On motion of the plaintiffs the trial court disregarded the answers of the jury to issues 17, 18, 24, 25, 26, 27, and 28 and entered judgment for plaintiffs for $15,260, being the amount of damages awarded for the injuries to Mrs. Moran. The verdict and judgment awarded $350 to the Morans' minor child but no appeal was taken as to that award.
The defendants contend the court erred in disregarding the jury finding that Mrs. Moran failed to keep a proper lookout.
The accident occurred at the intersection of Knipp Road and Sandalwood Drive in Houston, about 10:30 a. m., on a dry, clear day. The sun was shining. Both streets are approximately 27 feet wide. Both are concrete paved. Sandalwood runs east and west; Knipp, north and south. Mrs. Moran was driving south on Knipp and defendant Malone was driving east on Sandalwood. There were no traffic controls on either street. The approach to the intersection was straight on both streets. The right front of the pickup struck the plaintiffs' passenger car in the rear right door just in front of the rear right wheel. The impact occurred in the southwest quarter of the intersection. The rear end of the passenger car was about even with the center line of Sandalwood at point of impact. The car was over 19 feet long. At the point of impact the front end of the pickup was 3 feet east of the west line of the intersection. The pickup left 15 feet of skid marks up to point of impact. No skid marks were made by the car prior to the impact. There were no obstructions to interfere with the view of either driver as they approached the intersection.
Mrs. Moran testified: She was approximately 2 1/2 car lengths from the intersection when she first saw the pickup; at that time it was 200 to 300 feet away; she was traveling about 20 miles per hour; she could not approximate the speed of the pickup except that its speed was closer to 30 miles per hour than it was to 60; after seeing the pickup she looked to the left; there was no traffic approaching from the left; she did not see the pickup again until the front bumper of her car was about the middle of the intersection; at that time the pickup was about a car length from her car; she did not apply her brakes; she could have stopped prior to entering the intersection after she first saw the pickup, but she did not slow down and did not apply brakes; she thought she could pass through the intersection without danger.
Malone testified he and Mrs. Moran were equally distant from the intersection when he first saw her; he estimated both were 3 or 4 car lengths away from the intersection; he was going 18 or 20 miles per hour. (The jury found he was traveling in excess of 30.) At one time he testified he did not speed up, later he testified the truck started 'jerking' and he shifted into second gear to pick up a little speed, but did not speed up very fast.
We must of course accept the evidence and permissible inferences therefrom most favorable to the verdict, and disregard all evidence and inferences contrary thereto. Cartwright v. Canode, 106 Tex. 502, 171 S.W. 696; White v. White, 141 Tex. 328, 172 S.W.2d 295. We must also recognize it was within the jury's province to judge the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony, and to resolve conflicts and inconsistencies in the testimony of any one witness as well as the testimony of different witnesses. Austin Fire Ins. Co. v. Adams-Childers Co., Tex.Com.App., 246 S.W. 365.
Ordinarily, proper lookout is a question for the jury. Texas & Pac. Ry. Co. v. Day, 145 Tex. 277, 197 S.W.2d 332. The appellate court must...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cleaver v. Dresser Industries, 1156
...Company v. Adams Childers Company, 246 S.W. 365, 368 (Tex.Com.App.1923, holding approved); Joe D. Hughes, Inc. v. Moran, 325 S.W.2d 829, 831 (Tex.Civ.App. Fort Worth 1959, ref'd n. r. e.); Peck v. Century Concrete Products, Inc., supra at We have examined the entire statement of facts and r......
-
Walsh v. Hershey
...supra; Griffith v. Hudspeth, 378 S.W.2d 153 (San Antonio, Tex.Civ.App., 1964, no writ hist.); Joe D. Hughes, Inc. v. Moran, 325 S.W.2d 829 (Fort Worth, Tex.Civ.App., 1959, ref., n.r.e.); De Winne v. Allen, 154 Tex. 316, 277 S.W.2d 95 (1955); Mrs. Baird's Bread Company v. Williams, 425 S.W.2......
-
Permian Mud Service, Inc. v. Sipes
... ... Joe D ... Hughes, Inc., v. Moran, Tex.Civ.App., 325 S.W.2d 829, 831. We may not substitute our judgment for that of the court or jury even if we would have reached a ... ...
-
Owens v. Acme Oil Co., 206
...weight to be given their testimony. Martin v. J. S. Hunt Lumber Co., Inc., 180 S .W.2d 956, (Tex.Civ.App.) 1944, n.w.h.; Joe D. Hughes, Inc. v. Moran, 325 S.W.2d 829, (Tex.Civ.App.) 1959, writ ref., n.r.e. The jury is the judge of the facts and circumstances proven and may draw reasonable i......