Boggus Motor Co. v. Standridge, 10709.
| Decision Date | 13 March 1940 |
| Docket Number | No. 10709.,10709. |
| Parties | BOGGUS MOTOR CO. v. STANDRIDGE. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Cameron County; Jas. S. Graham, Judge.
Suit by C. B. Standridge against the Boggus Motor Company for injuries sustained by plaintiff while attempting to dismount from a truck which was upon a rack in the repair shop of the defendant motor company. From judgment for plaintiff, the defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Kent & Brown, of Harlingen, for appellant.
J. F. Carl, of Edinburg, and John Q. Adams, of Harlingen, for appellee.
This suit was instituted in the District Court of Cameron County, 103d Judicial District, by C. B. Standridge against Boggus Motor Company, a corporation, seeking to recover damages for injuries which he sustained while attempting to dismount from a truck which was upon a rack in the repair shop of the Motor Company.
The trial was to a jury, who made the following findings, to-wit:
1. That the front end of the truck in question was raised by the defendant acting by and through its employee, Frank Louk, after the plaintiff got into the truck and before he attempted to dismount therefrom.
2. That the truck was so raised after the plaintiff entered the cab so as to permit the same to tilt when the plaintiff undertook to dismount therefrom.
3. That when the plaintiff undertook to dismount from said truck, the same tilted by reason of having been raised as above inquired about.
4. That the aforesaid raising of said truck by defendant's agent or employee, Frank Louk, in such manner as to permit the same to tilt when the plaintiff attempted to dismount, was negligence on the part of the defendant.
5. That such negligence was a proximate cause of the injuries received by the plaintiff.
6. That the failure of defendant to warn plaintiff after plaintiff got in the cab that the front end of the truck had been raised after the plaintiff had entered the cab of the truck, constituted negligence, and that such negligence was a proximate cause of the injuries complained of by the plaintiff.
7. That the plaintiff's act in attempting to dismount from the truck backwards did not constitute negligence.
8. That the plaintiff did not fail to maintain a reasonable lookout for his own safety at and immediately prior to the accident in question.
9. That the sum of $2,000 would reasonably compensate the plaintiff for his injuries.
Judgment was entered accordingly and the Boggus Motor Company has prosecuted this appeal.
Appellant's first proposition presents the contention that when appellee, Standridge, entered the truck while it was on the elevated rack he left a place of safety and went into a place where he knew it was dangerous, and where he was not invited but was at most only a licensee, and there received an injury, he was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law.
The evidence shows that appellee took his truck to appellant's garage for the purpose of having certain repairs made on the truck. It was turned over to an employee of appellant and by him driven upon an elevated rack. Appellee was then shown what repairs would be necessary and he left the repair shop to go to the front of the garage to telephone to his wife to come for him. He then remembered that he had left a small bag of peaches and some letters in the truck which he wished to take home with him. He returned to the repair shop and asked leave of one of appellant's employees to enter the truck and get the peaches and the letters. Consent was given him; however, it is not shown that the employee had authority to give such consent. He entered the cab of the truck and secured his packages. While he was thus engaged, according to the finding of the jury, an employee of appellant jacked up the front end of the truck so that when appellee attempted to dismount the truck tilted and caused him to fall to the cement floor and fracture his skull. Appellee testified that he knew it was dangerous to enter the truck while it was on the rack, and especially if it was "tinkered with" while he was in it, and that he felt certain motions and heard certain noises while he was in the cab.
Appellant cites a great...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Orr By and Through Orr v. Turney
...horse); Martinez v. Martinez, 553 S.W.2d 211 (Tex.Civ.App.1977) (shooting off fireworks at backyard party); Boggus Motor Co. v. Standridge, 138 S.W.2d 643 (Tex.Civ.App.1940) (raising truck on lift rack before plaintiff could dismount); Bradshaw v. Minter, 206 Va. 450, 143 S.E.2d 827 (1965) ......
-
McKethan v. McKethan
...598 (1954); Arambula v. J. M. Dellinger, Inc ., 415 S.W.2d 456 (Tex.Civ.App.--San Antonio 1967, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Boggus Motor Co. v. Standridge, 138 S.W.2d 643 (Tex.Civ.App .--San Antonio 1940, writ dism'd, judg. corr.); St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. of Texas v. Balthrop, 167 S.W. 246 (......
-
Johnson v. Macias
...as by creating a new peril of which the licensee is not warned, after permitting him to enter upon the premises. Boggus v. Standridge, Tex. Civ.App., 138 S.W.2d 643; Houston Belt Ry. Co. v. O'Leary, Tex.Civ.App., 136 S.W. 601; Texas Cities Gas Co. v. Dickens, Tex. Civ.App., 168 S.W.2d 208; ......
-
Le Compte v. Wardell
...Demmon v. Smith, 58 Cal.App.2d 425, 136 P.2d 660; Garstka v. Republic Steel Corp., 294 Mich. 387, 293 N.W. 691; Boggus Motor Co. v. Standridge, Tex.Civ.App.1940, 138 S.W.2d 643; Roadman v. C. E. Johnson Motor Sales, 210 Minn. 59, 297 N.W. 166; Oklahoma Biltmore, Inc. v. Williams, 182 Okl. 5......