Beasley v. Baker

• Decision Date: 08 February 1960
• Docket Number: No. 6910,6910
• Citation: Beasley v. Baker, 333 S.W.2d 212 (Tex. Ct. App. 1960)
• Parties: Hazel BEASLEY, Appellant, v. Ross A. BAKER, Appellee.
• Court: Texas Civil Court of Appeals

Page 212

333 S.W.2d 212

Hazel BEASLEY, Appellant, v. Ross A. BAKER, Appellee.

No. 6910.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, Amarillo.

Feb. 8, 1960.

Rehearing Denied March 7, 1960.

Ray & Baughman, Amarillo; Jerry R. Hollingsworth, Amarillo, of counsel, for appellant.

Folley, Snodgrass & Calhoun, Amarillo; V. G. Kolius, Amarillo, of counsel, for appellee.

DENTON, Chief Justice.

This is a suit for property damages arising out of an automobile collision which occurred at an intersection in the City of Amarillo. The case was tried before a jury and upon the jury findings the trial court entered a judgment for the appellee. The appellant duly perfected this appeal and brings forward seven points of error.

In the first two points appellant complains of the trial court's refusal to allow appellant to file amended pleadings after both sides had closed their testimony, and she further complains of the trial court's refusal to submit the appellant's requested special issues which were related to the amended pleadings sought to be filed. The requested amended pleadings and special issues dealt with the appellant's allegation of appellee 'following too close.' Although Rule 66 of Vernon's Ann.Tex. Rules of Civil Procedure provides that trial amendments shall be freely made, the trial court is not without discretion in granting or denying trial amendments. Here the record reveals that testimony had been concluded and the attorneys were in the process of working with the trial court in preparing the charge to the jury when appellant made her request for the trial amendment and requested special issues. The record shows nothing more than the request and refusal. The trial court gave three sets of special issues relative to the conduct of the appellee in driving his automobile immediately prior to the collision in question. We are of the opinion the record fails to show an abuse of discretion by the trial court in refusing to allow the filing of a trial amendment and the requested special issues. Lone Star Steel Company v. Owens, Tex.Civ.App., 302 S.W.2d 213 and Shepard v. Outley, Tex.Civ.App., 256 S.W.2d 652.

Appellant next complains of the submission of Special Issue No. 1 of the court's charge pertaining to proper lookout on the part of appellant. The record reflects the issue was worded in the usual manner that has been approved many times by our appellate courts and the trial court here used the same language that was used in Special Issue No. 5 in reference to the manner of the lookout by the appellee. Appellant made no objection to Special Issue No. 5. Appellant further asserts Special Issue No. 1 should not have been submitted for the reason the appellant was not required to keep a lookout to the rear. The appellee testified he was approximately 75 feet behind appellant when he discovered she was slowing down and beginning to make a left turn. The jury found he did not fail to apply his brakes, and did not fail to keep a proper lookout. From all the evidence and circumstances in this case we are of the opinion the appellant was required to keep a lookout to the rear where she was moving and making a turn from one lane to another as she approached the intersection. We are of the opinion that Article 6701d, Section 68(a), Vernon's Ann.Civ.St. requires such a precaution on the part of the appellant under the circumstances here. We therefore overrule appellant's third point of error.

On January 29, 1959, the judgment was entered in the trial court below and the appellant filed her motion for new trial on February 6, 1959. It is appellant's contention that the trial court erred when it refused to grant a hearing on her motion for new trial. The record before us certified that the...