Austin Bridge Co. v. Polanca, 3286
| Decision Date | 08 March 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 3286,3286 |
| Citation | 300 S.W.2d 173 |
| Parties | AUSTIN BRIDGE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Ben M. POLANCA, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
M. Hendricks Brown and Walter E. Jordan, Ft. Worth, for appellant.
Hartman Hooser, Big Spring, Warren Burnett, Odessa, for appellee.
This suit was instituted by Ben Polanca against Austin Bridge Company to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by him in Borden County, Texas, on December 14, 1954. Defendant filed a plea of privilege to be sued in Dallas County, the county of its residence. Plaintiff controverted said plea and sought to sustain venue in Borden County under Subd. 9a of Article 1995, Vernon's Annotated Civil Statutes. Defendant has appealed from an order overruling the plea of privilege.
On the fourteenth day of December, 1954, defendant, working in connection with its subcontractor, Winn Pipe Line Service Company, was engaged in installing equipment at Lake J. B. Thomas in Borden County. The equipment being installed was a pump or generator weighing approximately 7,000 pounds. To elevate the pump and put it in place defendant was using a mechanical device known as a crane. After the crane started to raise the pump a wire line broke which caused the boom on the crane to fall and strike the plaintiff, whereby he was injured. Plaintiff on that occasion was an employee of Winn Pipe Line Service Company. Plaintiff alleged that Deavers, defendant's employee who was directing the operation of defendant's crane, was negligent in (1) failing to keep a proper lookout, (2) failing to warn plaintiff that the load to be lifted was in excess of an amount which could be safely handled by the crane, (3) attempting to lift the pump when the knew the crane could not safely elevate such a load and (4) failing to warn plaintiff that the crane could not safely handle the pump. The defendant contends there is no evidence, or at least the evidence is insufficient to support the implied finding of the trial court that its employee was guilty of negligence proximately causing plaintiff's injury. After a careful consideration of the evidence, we have concluded that this contention should be sustained. Exception 9a expressly provides that:
'The venue facts necessary for plaintiff to establish by the preponderance of the evidence to sustain venue in a county other than the county of defendant's residence are:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Calhoun v. Padgett
...other than that of the defendant's residence. Conner v. Chatman, 272 S.W.2d 136, (Tex.Civ.App., Galveston) 1954, n.w.h.; Austin Bridge Company v. Polanca, 300 S.W.2d 173, (Tex.Civ.App., Eastland) 1957, n.w.h.; Bart DeLatt & Associates, Inc. v. Knight, 369 S.W.2d 65, (Tex.Civ.App., Waco) 196......
-
McFarlin v. Taylor, 7739
...occurred is not of itself evidence of negligence. Rankin v. Nash-Texas Co., 129 Tex. 396, 105 S.W.2d 195 (1937); Austin Bridge Company v. Polanca, 300 S.W.2d 173 (Tex.Civ.App.--Eastland, 1957, no writ); Conner v. Chatman 272 S.W.2d 136 (Tex.Civ.App.--Galveston, 1954, no We are of the opinio......
-
Skidmore v. Finley
...DeLatt & Associates, Inc. v. Knight, Tex.Civ.App., 369 S.W.2d 65; Arnett v. Thomas, Tex.Civ.App., 386 S.W.2d 815; Austin Bridge Co. v. Polanca, Tex.Civ.App., 300 S.W.2d 173; and Conner v. Chatman, Tex.Civ.App., 272 S.W.2d While we recognize that the decision in each of these cases relied up......
-
Thompson v. Thoreson
...mere happening of an accident is no evidence of negligence. Rankin v. Nash-Texas Co., 129 Tex. 396, 105 S.W.2d 195. Austin Bridge Co. v. Polanca (Tex.Civ.App.) 300 S.W.2d 173. Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Co. v. Groves (Tex.Civ.App.) 308 S.W.2d 919 (Ref. N.R.E.). Bart DeLatt & Associates,......