Davila v. Sanders
| Decision Date | 05 October 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. B-6804,B-6804 |
| Citation | 557 S.W.2d 770 |
| Parties | Pedro DAVILA et ux., Terry McAfee et al., Petitioners, v. Clayton SANDERS et al., Respondents. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Garner, Vickers & Purdon, John E. Vickers, Edwards & Associates, James R. Edwards, Lubbock, for petitioners.
Clifford, Sims & Kidd, William A. Clifford and Richard S. Hubbert, Lubbock, for respondents.
The trial court's judgment in this personal injury suit absolved co-defendant Terry McAfee of liability. The Court of Civil Appeals reversed the judgment and remanded the case for new trial because of error in instructing the jury on imminent peril. 550 S.W.2d 709. We agree that the instruction should not have been given; but we add that with comparative negligence the controlling determination, use of the doctrine or rule of imminent peril is no longer justified in any case.
Co-defendant Clayton Sanders lost control of his southbound truck. McAfee, driving his truck behind Sanders' truck, attempted to avoid Sanders but crossed the mid-line of the highway and collided with northbound plaintiffs Davila. The trial court instructed the jury on sudden emergency and also gave the following imminent peril instruction:
A person is in a position of imminent peril when it reasonably appears to such person that he has been put in a position of danger, by the acts of another party, which calls for immediate action by such person without time for deliberation, and such appearance of danger caused such person to be so frightened as to be unable to use ordinary care for his own safety, and such appearance of danger was not proximately caused by any negligence on the part of such person. If you find that Terry David McAfee was in such a position, then all of your answers to the negligence issues inquired about concerning his conduct in this Charge should be answered in the negative.
If the negligent conduct of Terry David McAfee, if any, concurred in bringing about the position of peril, then he cannot avail himself of the Imminent Peril Doctrine.
It has been the Texas law that a plaintiff is not legally accountable for conduct, prudent or imprudent, while in a terrorized state of mind reasonably resulting from a position of peril created by the negligence of the defendant. International & G. N. Ry. v. Neff, 87 Tex. 303, 28 S.W. 283, 286 (1894). It has been a doctrine properly available only to a person in the legal position of a plaintiff. Del...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Reinhart v. Young
...279 (Tex.1978) (act of God); McDonald Transit, Inc. v. Moore, 565 S.W.2d 43, 45 (Tex.1978) (sudden emergency); Davila v. Sanders, 557 S.W.2d 770, 771 (Tex.1977) (per curiam) (sudden emergency); Jackson v. Fontaine's Clinics, Inc., 499 S.W.2d 87, 90-91 (Tex.1973) (sole proximate cause); Del ......
-
Del Lago Partners, Inc. v. Smith
...654 (Tex.2007) (citing French v. Grigsby, 571 S.W.2d 867, 867 (Tex. 1978) (disapproving of last-clear-chance doctrine); Davila v. Sanders, 557 S.W.2d 770, 771 (Tex.1977) (same regarding imminent peril); Farley, 529 S.W.2d at 758 (same regarding assumption of the 37 Parker v. Highland Park, ......
-
General Elec. Co. v. Moritz
...(Tex. 1978) (per curiam) (rejecting last clear chance as an absolute defense in favor of comparative negligence); Davila v. Sanders, 557 S.W.2d 770, 771 (Tex.1977) (per curiam) (rejecting imminent peril as an absolute defense in favor of comparative negligence); Farley, 529 S.W.2d at 758-59......
-
Sanchez v. Schindler
...doctrines. See, e.g., Parker v. Highland Park, Inc., 565 S.W.2d 512, 514 (Tex.1978) (abolished no-duty rule); Davila v. Sanders, 557 S.W.2d 770, 771 (Tex.1977) (per curiam) (doctrine of imminent peril abolished); Farley v. M & M Cattle Co., 529 S.W.2d 751, 758 (Tex.1975) (abolished doctrine......