Dean v. Texas Bitulithic Co., 5585

Decision Date24 June 1976
Docket NumberNo. 5585,5585
Citation538 S.W.2d 825
PartiesPatrick T. DEAN, Appellant, v. TEXAS BITULITHIC COMPANY and the City of Dallas, Appellees.
CourtTexas Court of Appeals

Berman, Fichtner & Mitchell, W. W. Mitchell, II., Dallas, for appellant.

Thompson, Knight, Simmons & Bullion, Luke Ashley, M. Leigh Bartlett, Dallas, for appellees.


McDONALD, Chief Justice.

This is an appeal by plaintiff Dean from a take-nothing judgment rendered against him upon a jury verdict.

Plaintiff sued defendants Texas Bitulithic and City of Dallas for personal injuries, suffered when his car collided with construction barricades on a street in Dallas. The construction work was being performed by Texas Bitulithic under contract with the City.

Prior to empaneling of the jury, the trial court allowed defendants a total of 9 peremptory challenges.

Trial to the jury resulted in findings that neither defendant was negligent, and that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence.

The trial court rendered judgment on the verdict that plaintiff take nothing.

Plaintiff appeals on one point contending the trial court erred in allowing defendants, Texas Bitulithic and City of Dallas, a total of 9 peremptory challenges to the jury panel, as against plaintiff's 6 peremptory challenges, inasmuch as defendants were not adverse or in conflict on any fact issue to go before the jury.

Rule 233 TRCP provides that '(e)ach party to a civil suit shall be entitled to 6 peremptory challenges in a case tried in the district court.'

Article 2151a provides that '(a)fter proper alignment of parties, it shall be the duty of the court to equalize the number of peremptory challenges provided under Rule 233 (TRCP), in accordance with the ends of justice so that no party is given an unequal advantage because of the number of peremptory challenges allowed that party.'

Plaintiff alleged that either or both defendants committed 13 specific acts or negligence related to the placement of warning signs, lights, and barricades at the construction site (or to the condition of the road). Both defendants denied each of the allegations of negligence. Both defendants asserted that plaintiff was negligent. Thus the two defendants were adverse to each other with respect to plaintiff's claim of negligence as to the placement of warning signs, lights and barricades, but were united in asserting plaintiff's contributory negligence.

The trial court in its...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Lubbock Mfg. Co. v. Perez
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • 18 Octubre 1979 make a fair allocation. Austin Road Co. v. Evans (Ft.Worth, Tex.Civ.App.1973) 499 S.W.2d 194, NRE; Dean v. Texas Bitulithic Co. (Waco, Tex.Civ.App.1976) 538 S.W.2d 825, no writ; King v. Maldonado (Corpus Christi, Tex.Civ.App.1977) 552 S.W.2d 940, NRE. In an appeal claiming an abuse of di......
  • Patterson Dental Co. v. Dunn
    • United States
    • Texas Supreme Court
    • 19 Diciembre 1979
    ...other courts of civil appeals. King v. Maldonado, 552 S.W.2d 940 (Tex.Civ.App. Corpus Christi 1977, writ ref'd n. r. e.); Dean v. Texas Bitulithic Co., 538 S.W.2d 825 (Tex.Civ.App. Waco 1976, no writ); Austin Road Co. v. Evans, 499 S.W.2d 194 (Tex.Civ.App. Fort Worth 1973, writ ref'd n. r. ......
  • Thomas v. Oil & Gas Bldg., Inc.
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • 19 Abril 1979
    ...Since it did not do so, the matter is left to the sound discretion of the trial court." See also Dean v. Texas Bitulithic Co., 538 S.W.2d 825 (Tex.Civ.App.1976, writ ref'd n. r. e.). After the parties were aligned by the trial court, it became the court's duty to equalize the number of pere......
  • Scurlock Oil Co. v. Smithwick
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • 12 Septiembre 1985
    ...Oil & Gas Building, Inc., 582 S.W.2d 873 (Tex.Civ.App.--Corpus Christi 1979, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Dean v. Texas Bitulithic Company, 538 S.W.2d 825 (Tex.Civ.App.--Waco 1976, writ ref'd n.r.e.). The record reflects that the trial court took care to ensure that appellees and MoPac did not colla......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT