Cormier v. Highway Trucking Co.
| Decision Date | 02 April 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 13329,13329 |
| Parties | Matthew CORMIER, Appellant, v. HIGHWAY TRUCKING COMPANY et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Jack Fields, Port Lavaca, for appellant.
Lewright, Dyer & Redford, James W. Wray, Jr., Corpus Christi, for appellees.
This suit was instituted in the County Court of Calhoun County by Matthew Cormier against Highway Trucking Company and Solomon Gonzales, seeking to recover damages to the automobile of plaintiff resulting from a collision between plaintiff's automobile and a truck driven by Solomon Gonzales and owned by Highway Trucking Company.
There had been a previous suit between these parties, based on the same collision, in which plaintiff recovered judgment against the defendants for personal injuries sustained by him in that collision. The defendants plead the judgment in the District Court as a bar to the cause of action in the County Court. The trial court sustained the plea of bar and granted a summary judgment that plaintiff take nothing as against the defendants. Matthew Cormier has prosecuted this appeal.
Appellant clearly states that the question here presented is: 'May a Plaintiff who receives injuries to his person and damages to his property in a single occurrence bring two separate actions for damages against the same Defendant or Defendants, one for the injuries to his person and one for the injuries to his property without a recovery in one barring a recovery in the other?' This is a question of first impression in this State. There are two early cases which have a bearing on the matter: Watson v. Texas & P. Railway Co., 8 Tex.Civ.App. 144, 27 S.W. 924, and Texas & P. R. Co. v. Nelson, 9 Tex.Civ.App. 156, 29 S.W. 78. The facts in those cases distinguish them from the case we have before us and, therefore, do not settle the question here raised.
The authorities of other jurisdictions are not in accord on this question. There is clearly a majority rule and a minority rule. In 127 A.L.R. at page 1081, the majority rule is stated as follows: '* * * a single wrongful or negligent act or omission causing an injury to both the person and the property of the same individual constitutes but one cause of action with separate items of damage, and * * * hence, the cause of action cannot be split, and a recovery of a judgment for either item of damage may be pleaded in bar of an action to recover for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pecorino v. Raymark Industries, Inc.
...of a judgment for an element of damage may be pleaded in bar of an action to recover for another element of damage. Cormier v. Highway Trucking Company, 312 S.W.2d 406 (Tex.Civ.App.--San Antonio 1958, no The several pleadings of the Pecorinos are based upon the same exposure and the same ye......
-
Adler v. Beverly Hills Hospital, 20117
...Mitchell, 392 S.W.2d 703, 705 (Tex.Civ.App. Tyler 1965, no writ) (separate items of damage resulting from same tort); Cormier v. Highway Trucking Co., 312 S.W.2d 406, 407 (Tex.Civ.App. San Antonio 1958, no writ) (personal injury and property damage resulting from same collision). Under this......
-
Landers v. B. F. Goodrich Co.
...and contravenes the policy which shields the defendant from a multiplicity of suits. They rely primarily on Cormier v. Highway Trucking Co., Tex.Civ.App., 312 S.W.2d 406 (no writ), and Garrett v. Matthews, Tex.Civ.App., 343 S.W.2d 289 (no writ). It was there held that a single wrongful or n......
-
Southern Pac. Transp. Co. v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co.
...of a judgment for either item of damage may be pleaded in bar of an action to recover for the other item of damage,' Cormier v. Highway Trucking, 312 S.W.2d 406 (Tex.Civ.App., San Antonio, 1958, n.w.h.). Cormier more specifically, held that a single transaction involving both property damag......