Carrick v. Hedrick
| Decision Date | 20 November 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 7127,7127 |
| Citation | 351 S.W.2d 659 |
| Parties | Mai Conner CARRICK v. L. W. HEDRICK et al. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
James P. Donovan, Dallas, for appellant.
Malone, Seay & Gwinn, Dallas, for appellees.
This is a suit seeking to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by appellant as a result of an automobile and truck collision at an intersection in the City of Dallas. Appellees, L. W. Hedrick and James W. Hedrick, were owners of the truck which was being driven by appellee Troy Dan Ray. All three were made party defendants. The case was tried before a jury. The jury exonerated the defendant driver of all acts of negligence, and found appellant contributorially negligent in the operation of her automobile in several respects, including running a red light. The jury further found that the appellant sustained no personal injury as a result of the collision. The trial court thereupon entered judgment for the defendants below.
Appellees contend by counter points that appellant's points of error are too general and indefinite, and that allegations in appellant's amended motion for new trial are not sufficiently definite to enable this court to consider the matters complained of. In view of the liberal construction to be given in interpreting our Rules of Civil Procedure, we conclude the points of error, except the one hereinafter mentioned, are sufficiently definite for this court to consider them. Under two points, appellant referred to certain paragraphs of the motion for new trial when in fact the named paragraph should have referred to the amended motion for a new trial. We do not think such an error or mistake is fatal.
Appellant first contends the trial court erred in permitting the investigating police officer to testify to certain conversations he had with witnesses at the scene. Further complaint is made of the officer testifying to appellant's plea of guilty to a traffic violation which grew out of the collision in question. These points will be considered in the order named. Over appellant's objection, the officer was permitted to testify that three witnesses to the collision told him the appellant ran a red traffic light. These conversations took place at the scene within ten minutes of the collision. Such statements were admissible as res gestae. The statements were made by witnesses to the collision within a few minutes of the collision. As they were made on the scene and in such close proximity to the actual occurrence, we are of the opinion they were spontaneous utterances which arose from the transaction itself. Knapik v. Edison Bros., Inc. (Tex.Civ.App.), 313 S.W.2d 335 (error refused). The fact the statements complained of were made by bystanders is of no significance if their statements are in fact res gestae. Firemen's Ins. Co. v. Havron (Tex.Civ.App.), 277 S.W. 742 (no writ history); Dallas Ry. & Terminal Co. v. Burns (Tex.Civ.App.), 60 S.W.2d 801 (no writ history); Tyreco Refining Co. v. Cook (Tex.Civ.App.), 110 S.W.2d 219 (Dismissed). It should be noted that all three of these witnesses testified at the trial. One of these witnesses denied making the statement to the officer, and further testified that appellant entered the intersection on a green light. The other two witnesses affirmed their statements to the officer, and gave identical testimony at the trial. We think this would have cured any error committed in admitting their statements made at the scene.
Appellant next complains of the admission into evidence of the telephone conversation of the same investigating police officer with a 'stranger to the action.' In this conversation the officer expressed the opinion the appellant was at fault in connection with the collision. This conversation was in fact with the son of appellant, and was initiated by the policeman in behalf of the appellant. The statement to the effect that appellant was at fault was made in response to a direct question by the son. Appellant was near by in the place of business when the officer placed the call and she also talked to the son after the policeman had concluded his conversation. Under these facts we cannot say the policeman's conversation with appellant's own son was inadmissible as hearsay.
This same police officer testified that appellant later appeared in parson in the corporation court and entered a plea of guilty to a charge of negligent collision and paid a $25 fine. Appellant timely objected to this testimony together with the introduction of a certified copy of the corporation court's docket and minutes of the appellant's traffic case. The officer was present in the courtroom when appellant entered...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Greenberg v. Mobil Oil Corporation
...178 S.W.2d 610, 616, err. ref. want of merit; Canales v. Bank of California, Tex.Civ.App., 316 S.W.2d 314, err. ref.; Carrick v. Hedrick, Tex.Civ.App., 351 S.W.2d 659, no writ history; Plains Transport, Inc. v. Isaacs, Tex.Civ.App., 361 S.W.2d 919, err. ref., n. r. 19 The determination of w......
-
Ramsey v. Lucky Stores, Inc.
...the time, place, and person to whom it was made, and must be afforded an opportunity to explain or deny the statement. See Carrick v. Hendrick, 351 S.W.2d 659, 662 (Tex.Civ.App.--Amarillo 1961, no writ); TEX.R.CIV.EVID. 613(a). Evidence of the prior inconsistent statement is admissible unle......
-
Garcia v. Sky Climber, Inc.
...purposes alone, the witness to be impeached must first be confronted with the alleged prior contradictory statement. Carrick v. Hedrick, 351 S.W.2d 659 (Tex.Civ.App.--Amarillo 1961, no writ); Buford v. Baldwin, 287 S.W.2d 301 (Tex.Civ.App.--Texarkana 1956, no writ); Ray v. Gage, 269 S.W.2d ......
-
Duncan v. Smith
...Tex.Civ.App., 269 S.W.2d 427, (Error Ref. N.R.E.); Beck v. Wahlgren, Tex.Civ.App., 87 S.W.2d 890, (No Writ History); Carrick v. Hedrick, Tex.Civ.App., 351 S.W.2d 659, (No Writ History); Dallas Ry. & Terminal Co. v. Burns, Tex.Civ.App., 60 S.W.2d 801, (No Writ History); Keystone-Fleming Tran......