Grady v. Dallas Ry. & Terminal Co.
| Citation | 278 S.W.2d 282 |
| Decision Date | 03 May 1954 |
| Docket Number | No. 6397,6397 |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Civil Appeals of Texas |
| Parties | Taft GRADY et ux., Appellants, v. DALLAS RAILWAY & TERMINAL COMPANY, Appellee. |
Helen M. Viglini, Dallas, for appellant.
Burford, Ryburn, Hinchs & Ford, Clarence A. Guittard, Dallas, for appellee.
Appellant, Taft Grady, and wife, Lena Mae Grady, plaintiffs in the trial court, sued appellee, Dallas Railway & Terminal Company, for damages in amount $15,491, alleging that while Lena Mae Grady was a paid passenger on one of defendant's buses, said bus stopped suddenly with a lurch and jerk throwing Lena Mae Grady against metal and other parts of said bus injuring her. The jury in the cause found that appellee's bus driver stopped the bus with a jerk but that such act was not negligence, that appellant, Lena Mae Grady's injuries were the result of an unavoidable accident and further found that she was damaged in the sum of $1,310. The trial court entered judgment for the appellee and appellant perfected this appeal presenting eight points of error. In equalizing the dockets of the various Courts of Civil Appeals, the cause was transferred from the Dallas Court of Civil Appeals to this court.
Appellants' Points 1, 2, and 8 assert that the jury's finding that appellee's driver was not negligent is against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence and that there is no evidence to support such finding. The evidence supporting the jury verdict will not be stated in detail but it is undisputed that the bus driver was driving about 12 to 15 miles per hour when flagged down by a pedestrian who was across the street from the usual bus stop. The driver brought the bus to a stop at a distance of 75 feet and none of the passengers were thrown out of the seats of the bus. No accidents or injuries were reported to the bus driver after he made this stop. The record further discloses that appellant had other ailments which she sought to attribute to the stopping of the bus but which were wholly unrelated to the alleged accident, e. q., ectopic pregnancy. There is evidence to support the jury verdict that appellee's driver was not negligent in the manner in which he stopped the bus and such finding of the jury is not against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence. Appellants' Points 1, 2 and 8 are overruled.
Appellants' Point 3 asserts that the court erred in submitting Special Issue No. 4 as to unavoidable accident. Appellants' Point 4 asserts that there is no evidence to support the jury finding of unavoidable accident. Point 6 asserts that the jury finding that appellant's injuries were the result of an unavoidable accident was against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence but this point has not been briefed and is waived. It is noteworthy that appellant makes no contention that the jury finding of unavoidable accident was in any...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Watson v. Godwin
...S.W.2d 182 (N.R.E .); Butterfield Sales Company v. Armstrong, Tex.Civ.App., 278 S.W.2d 194 (N.R.E.); Grady v. Dallas Railway & Terminal Company, Tex.Civ.App., 278 S.W.2d 282 (N.R.E.); Stanford v. Brooks, Tex.Civ.App., 298 S.W.2d 268 (N.W.H.); Pride v. Pride, Tex.Civ.App., 318 S.W.2d 715 (N.......
-
Employers' Nat. Life Ins. Co. of Dallas, Tex. v. Willits
...Sales Co. v. Armstrong, 278 S.W.2d 194 (Tex.Civ.App.--Amarillo, 1954, writ ref'd, n.r.e.); Grady v. Dallas Railway & Terminal Co., 278 S.W .2d 282 (Tex.Civ.App.--Amarillo, 1954, writ ref'd, n.r.e.); Stanford v. Brooks, 298 S.W.2d 268 (Tex.Civ.App.--Fort Worth, 1957, n.w.h.); Hall v. Hall, 3......
-
Maynard v. Dallas Ry. & Terminal Co.
...146 Tex. 548, 209 S.W.2d 585; Colls v. Price's Creameries, Tex.Civ.App., 244 S.W.2d 900 (RNRE) and Grady v. Dallas Railway & Terminal Company, Tex.Civ.App., 278 S.W.2d 282 (RNRE). In Pearson v. Doherty, 143 Tex. 64, 183 S.W.2d 453, 456, our Supreme Court quoted with approval from Howard v. ......
-
Nelson v. Dallas Ry. & Terminal Co.
...opinion by Cheif Justice Murray, concurring opinion by Justice Pope, dissenting opinion by Justice Norvell); Grady v. Dallas Railway & Terminal Co., Tex.Civ.App., 278 S.W.2d 282 (Amarillo Court, no writ history); Herrera v. Zinberg, Tex.Civ.App., 287 S.W.2d 695 (San Antonio Court, n. r. e.)......