Fouraker v. Kidd Springs Boating and Fishing Club

• Decision Date: 18 November 1933
• Docket Number: No. 11341.,11341.
• Parties: FOURAKER v. KIDD SPRINGS BOATING AND FISHING CLUB.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

65 S.W.2d 796

FOURAKER v. KIDD SPRINGS BOATING AND FISHING CLUB.

No. 11341.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Dallas.

November 18, 1933.

Appeal from District Court, Dallas County; Robert B. Allen, Sr., Judge.

Action by W. M. Fouraker against the Kidd Springs Boating and Fishing Club. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

Clint & Eades, of Dallas, for appellant.

W. J. Rutledge, Jr., of Dallas, for appellee.

LOONEY, Justice.

W. M. Fouraker sued Kidd Springs Boating and Fishing Club for damages, alleging in substance that, while legally upon defendant's premises in its amusement park, he was personally assaulted and injured by defendant's employees (commissioned peace officers), was wrongfully, without warrant, arrested by them, and in violation of article 217, C. C. P., the arresting parties failed to immediately take plaintiff before the magistrate nearest the place of arrest, but caused him to be incarcerated in the county jail of Dallas county, thus injuring, shaming, and humiliating plaintiff, for which he sought both actual and exemplary damages.

After a general denial, defendant answered specially that, on the occasion in question plaintiff was drunk, drove his car through the entrance gate to the amusement park, refusing to pay the entrance fee, and cursed and abused the keeper of the gate when he protested; that certain peace officers (Hancock, Brown, and Winters) were on the premises, to maintain order, preserve the peace, and protect patrons of the park from the rowdyism and disorderly conduct of drunken men who might enter and be upon the premises; that, discovering the intoxicated condition of plaintiff, the officers undertook his arrest, whereupon plaintiff resisted, cursed and abused the officers, however, his arrest being accomplished, plaintiff was taken to and incarcerated in the county jail, and after about three hours was liberated by the officer at the jail having him in custody; that the failure of said officers to immediately take plaintiff, in an intoxicated condition, before the magistrate late at night, did not breach or violate any duty owing plaintiff; on the contrary, that the conduct of the officers, under the circumstances, was in harmony with the spirit and meaning of the statutes relating to the custody of persons arrested under such circumstances.

After explaining and defining the legal terms used in the charge, the court submitted the case on special issues, to which the jury answered, in substance: That plaintiff was drunk when arrested on the night in question; that he was guilty of disturbing the peace, and of using abusive language, as those offenses were defined by the court; that the arresting officers acted within the scope of their authority as employees of defendant; that they did not use a greater degree of force than reasonably necessary to accomplish plaintiff's arrest and detention; that plaintiff sustained certain personal injuries during the arrest, but that the injuries were not inflicted by either of the arresting officers; and further that plaintiff suffered no actual damages as the result of the arrest, detention, and incarceration.

These findings clearly justified the court in rendering judgment for defendant, and the same should stand, unless, as a matter of law, the court should have rendered judgment in plaintiff's favor for nominal damages. Plaintiff appealed from the adverse judgment, but the case is before us without a statement of facts.

The appeal is predicated upon the answer of the jury to special issue ...