Coble v. Phillips Petroleum Co.
| Decision Date | 11 November 1939 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 40. |
| Citation | 30 F. Supp. 39 |
| Parties | COBLE v. PHILLIPS PETROLEUM CO. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas |
Shannon, Ochsner & Little and Morgan, Culton, Morgan & Britain, all of Amarillo, Tex., for the motion.
Sanders & Scott, of Amarillo, Tex., opposed.
The plaintiff was awarded judgment for $50,025.10, for the death of his wife, on jury verdict.
This motion for new trial presents the point that the plaintiff apprised the jury that the defendant was covered by indemnity insurance. Exactly what happened in that respect is disclosed by the following examination:
The first questions were asked, and answered by, a Mr. Davis who was testifying as a defendant witness, and who was driving the truck which was involved in the collision which resulted in the death of the plaintiff's wife.
Such cases as James Stewart & Company v. Newby, 4 Cir., 266 F. 287; Continental Oil Company v. Barnes, Tex. Civ.App., 97 S.W.2d 494; Huey & Philp Hardware Company v. McNeil, Tex.Civ. App., 111 S.W.2d 1205; Fell v. Kimble, Tex.Civ.App., 154 S.W. 1070; Wichita Falls Motor Company v. Meade, Tex.Civ. App., 203 S.W. 71; Texas Company v. Betterton, 126 Tex. 359, 88 S.W.2d 1039; Southland Greyhound Lines v. Cotten, 126 Tex. 596, 91 S.W.2d 326, 327; South Texas Coaches v. Woodward et al., Tex.Civ. App., 123 S.W.2d 395; Horton v. Benson, Tex.Civ.App., 266 S.W. 213, clearly demonstrate that the rule in Texas, declared to be wholesome by the Supreme Court of the state, is that such information must not be imparted to the jury. When questions are asked which disclose insurance protection, nothing short of an affirmative showing that no injury resulted is sufficient to render it harmless.
The plaintiff suggests that the importance and bigness of the defendant would save the jury from the thought of placing the burden on an insurance company, which suggestion may be answered with the statement that any such argument must be, at best, pure conjecture. Likewise, it has been suggested that jurors are, themselves, becoming familiar with the common...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bayard v. Traders & General Ins. Co.
...company. That is a well settled and a well observed rule in Texas," citing numerous state decisions, as well as Coble v. Phillips Petroleum Co., D.C., 30 F.Supp. 39. He also referred to the fact that the Louisiana statute had been considered by the Supreme Court of Mississippi, in the case ......
-
Wells v. Irwin
...that the loss is ultimately to fall on an insurance company. That is a well settled and a well observed rule in Texas. Coble v. Phillips Pet. Co., D. C., 30 F. Supp. 39. There may be a joinder of insurer and insured where the policy so permits. One must bring his suit within the terms of th......
-
Bereslavsky v. Kloeb
...that damages were also sought for past infringement did not entitle the plaintiff to a jury trial on the issue of damages. The court said 30 F.Supp. 39, "The distinction between Law and Equity, abolished by the new rules, is a distinction in procedure and not a distinction between remedies.......