Blythe County Line Independent School Dist. v. Garrett
| Decision Date | 31 May 1950 |
| Docket Number | No. 4731,4731 |
| Citation | 232 S.W.2d 248 |
| Parties | BLYTHE COUNTY LINE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST. v. GARRETT. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Crenshaw, Depree & Milam, Lubbock, for appellant.
Lawrence L. Barber, Seagraves, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Gaines County. The purpose of the suit was to recover damages to a passenger automobile resulting from a collision with a school bus in the city of Seagraves. The trial was to a jury on the facts. The case was submitted on special issues and on the answers to the issues judgment was rendered for plaintiffs in the sum of $269.80 from which this appeal is prosecuted.
As we construe the petition it is alleged the driver of the bus was negligent in failing to keep a proper lookout; in failing to come to a complete stop when he came into a paved street off of an unpaved one; in operating the bus at a high rate of speed, and that he did not have the bus under control.
The defendant answered, among other things, that the driver of plaintiffs' car was negligent in driving the same in excess of 30 miles per hour in violation of State law and the City ordinances; in driving the same at a greater rate of speed than an ordinarily prudent person would have under the circumstances; in failing to keep a proper lookout; failing to slow down the car in time to avoid the collision; in failing to stop the car in time to avoid the accident; in failing to yield the right of way to the bus, the bus having the right of way under the law applicable to the situation, and in failing to observe a stop sign and to stop as required by the stop sign at the intersection where the collision occurred.
The Court submitted the case upon two issues of negligence generally. The first was:
The answer was yes.
Then followed the issue on proximate cause, and then Special Issue No. 3: and the answer was no.
Special Issue No. 4 inquired if the accident were unavoidable, to which the jury answered 'Yes'.
There was proof on most, if not all, of the acts of claimed negligence. Under the record in the case the submission is so obviously erroneous as to render comment unnecessary.
A defendant is entitled to have each...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kainer v. Walker
...Co., 111 Tex. 461, 240 S.W. 517; Roosth & Genecov Production Co. v. White, 152 Tex. 619, 262 S.W.2d 99; Blythe County Line Ind. Sch. Dist. v. Garrett, Tex.Civ.App. 232 S.W.2d 248 (no writ). These and a number of other cases cited by the parties are not necessarily controlling here, because ......
-
Williams v. Hemphill County
...Co. v. Boland, Tex.Civ.App., 53 S.W.2d 158; Woodson v. Floyd, Tex.Civ.App., 195, S.W.2d 601, n. r. e.; Blythe County Line Independent School Dist. v. Garrett, Tex.Civ.App., 232 S.W.2d 248. Moreover, the appellant complains that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury's verdict. It......
-
Ramey v. Richardson
...was not proper basis for judgment. Driver v. Worth Construction Company, 154 Tex. 66, 273 S.W.2d 603; Blythe County Line Independent School Dist v. Garrett, Tex.Civ.App., 232 S.W.2d 248 and cases there The undisputed evidence is that the defendant leased the pasture in question from Jack Cr......