Finck Cigar Co. v. Campbell, No. 2275-7406.
| Court | Supreme Court of Texas |
| Writing for the Court | Hickman |
| Citation | 133 S.W.2d 759 |
| Parties | FINCK CIGAR CO. v. CAMPBELL. |
| Docket Number | No. 2275-7406. |
| Decision Date | 06 December 1939 |
v.
CAMPBELL.
Page 760
Error to Court of Civil Appeals of Second Supreme Judicial District.
Action by S. L. Campbell against the Finck Cigar Company for damages growing out of an automobile collision. Judgment for the plaintiff was affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals, 114 S.W.2d 348, and defendant brings error.
Affirmed.
Touchstone, Wight, Gormley & Price, of Dallas, for plaintiff in error.
Ray Bland, T. R. Boone, and Kilgore & Rogers, all of Wichita Falls, for defendant in error.
HICKMAN, Commissioner.
In the trial court, S. L. Campbell, defendant in error, recovered judgment against Finck Cigar Company, plaintiff in error, for damages resulting from a collision between his automobile and an automobile belonging to the Cigar Company, and being operated at the time of the collision by its agent. The judgment of the trial court was affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals. 114 S.W.2d 348.
Only two questions are presented for decision. The first one arose out of the court's charge. Special Issue No. 35 was in this form: "Find from a preponderance of the evidence what amount of money, if any, if paid now in cash, would reasonably and fairly compensate the plaintiff, S. L. Campbell, for the injuries and damages sustained by him, if any, as directly and proximately caused by the negligence, if any, of the driver of the defendant's automobile in question. In answering you may take into consideration only such elements of damage, if any, as hereinafter enumerated and consider no more."
Following this issue the elements of damage were enumerated under lettered subdivisions a to j, inclusive. Typical of these lettered subdivisions is the first, reading as follows: "a—Loss of earnings of the plaintiff, S. L. Campbell, if any, which he sustained in the past as a direct and proximate result of such negligence, if any."
It will be observed that the above language limited the jury to the finding of such damages as were directly and proximately caused by the negligence, if any, of the driver of the defendant's automobile. The claim is that by thus restricting the scope of the inquiry the charge informed the jury of the effect of its answers to the issues on negligence and proximate cause. In support of this contention plaintiff in error relies principally upon the case of Grasso v. Cannon Ball Motor Freight Lines et al., 125 Tex. 154, 81 S.W. 2d 482.
There is a clear distinction between the charge in that case and the one in this case. What was there condemned was a general charge given in a case submitted on special issues, the effect of which was to inform the jury of the result of all of its answers, including those to the issues submitting the question of the plaintiff's contributory negligence. In this case the language of the special issue and the accompanying instructions at most but...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Boddy v. Canteau, No. 14747
...defendant in an action for damages for personal injury is protected by indemnity insurance. Finck Cigar Co. v. Campbell, 134 Tex. 250, 133 S.W.2d 759 (1939); Page v. Thomas, 123 Tex. 368, 71 S.W.2d 234 (1934). However, the mention of insurance does not always require a reversal in a persona......
-
H.E. Butt Grocery Co. v. Bilotto, No. 96-0995
...at 87 (approving conditioning damages on a finding of liability and distinguishing Grasso); Finck Cigar Co. v. Campbell, 134 Tex. 250, 133 S.W.2d 759, 760 (Tex.Com.App.1939)(approving conditioning damages on a finding of liability and distinguishing Grasso). This is true whether the bar to ......
-
Texas Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Lovejoy, No. 1971.
...is recognized. The general rule, and an exception thereto, is stated by Judge Hickman in Finck Cigar Co. v. Campbell, Tex.Com.App., 133 S.W.2d 759, 761, as "It is a well settled rule in this jurisdiction that it is error to inform the jury that the defendant in an action for damages for per......
-
Garcia v. Sanchez, No. 6711
...prejudice the jury. * * *' With the above statement of the law we have no quarrel. However, in Finck Cigar Co. v. Campbell, 134 Tex. 250, 133 S.W.2d 759, 761, it is 'It is a well settled rule in this jurisdiction that it is error to inform the [68 N.M. 403] jury that the defendant in an act......
-
Boddy v. Canteau, No. 14747
...defendant in an action for damages for personal injury is protected by indemnity insurance. Finck Cigar Co. v. Campbell, 134 Tex. 250, 133 S.W.2d 759 (1939); Page v. Thomas, 123 Tex. 368, 71 S.W.2d 234 (1934). However, the mention of insurance does not always require a reversal in a persona......
-
H.E. Butt Grocery Co. v. Bilotto, No. 96-0995
...at 87 (approving conditioning damages on a finding of liability and distinguishing Grasso); Finck Cigar Co. v. Campbell, 134 Tex. 250, 133 S.W.2d 759, 760 (Tex.Com.App.1939)(approving conditioning damages on a finding of liability and distinguishing Grasso). This is true whether the bar to ......
-
Texas Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Lovejoy, No. 1971.
...is recognized. The general rule, and an exception thereto, is stated by Judge Hickman in Finck Cigar Co. v. Campbell, Tex.Com.App., 133 S.W.2d 759, 761, as "It is a well settled rule in this jurisdiction that it is error to inform the jury that the defendant in an action for damages for per......
-
Garcia v. Sanchez, No. 6711
...prejudice the jury. * * *' With the above statement of the law we have no quarrel. However, in Finck Cigar Co. v. Campbell, 134 Tex. 250, 133 S.W.2d 759, 761, it is 'It is a well settled rule in this jurisdiction that it is error to inform the [68 N.M. 403] jury that the defendant in an act......