Henderson v. Smith
| Decision Date | 09 February 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 16292,16292 |
| Parties | Lynda HENDERSON, Appellant, v. Margaret Cameron SMITH, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
James J. Hultgren, Dallas, for appellant.
Bailey & Williams and James A. Williams, Dallas, for appellee.
This suit grew out of an intersection collision between automobiles driven by plaintiff Henderson and defendant Smith.
The jury found that plaintiff failed to keep a proper lookout and such failure was a proximate cause of the collision. Based upon said findings, judgment was entered for defendant, and plaintiff appealed.
Plaintiff's first two points are based on contentions of no evidence to support the jury findings on proper lookout, and other points contend the findings are against the great preponderance and weight of the evidence.
The accident occurred about 5:30 P.M. at the intersection of Northwest Highway and Hathaway Street in the City of Dallas. Northwest Highway has four lanes, two for west bound traffic and two for east bound traffic. Hathaway Street is a residential street which enters the Highway from the north. Traffic from Hathaway Street into the Highway is controlled by a stop sign. Defendant approached the Highway on Hathaway. Plaintiff was driving west on the outside, or north, lane of the Highway. When the impact occurred defendant's car was partly across the 'eastwest divider' of the Highway. Plaintiff's car was in the inside west bound lane of the Highway. The left front side of defendant's fendant's car was damaged and the left front fender of plaintiff's car was damaged. Plaintiff's car left 35 feet of skid marks, angling from the north lane to the point of impact.
Plaintiff testified in person and portions of her prior deposition were introduced. Viewing the evidence from the standpoint most favorable to the jury findings, her testimony is in substance that she was traveling west about 40 miles per hour as she entered an underpass east of the point of collision; she continued west and as she emerged from the underpass she saw defendant's car on Hathaway and 'it looked to me like it was stopped', so she continued to drive forward. At that time the defendant's car was about 240 feet away. In her deposition plaintiff testified that after she first saw defendant's car from the underpass she did not see it again until the impact. At another point she testified she saw defendant's car again when plaintiff was about 80 feet from the point of impact at which time defendant's car was moving onto the Highway. As to whether or not defendant's car was moving when plaintiff first saw it she answered, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Roberts v. Jordan, 7779
...keep up such a lookout for his own safety as a reasonably prudent man would do under the same or similar circumstances. Henderson v. Smith, Tex.Civ.App., 354 S.W .2d 426, no writ history; Joe D. Hughes, Inc. v. Moran, Tex.Civ.App., 325 S.W.2d 829, ref. n.r.e.; Powell v. Sanders, Tex.Civ.App......
-
Sneed v. Fort Worth Transit Co.
...by a person of ordinary prudence similarly situated. Renegar v. Louis, 368 S.W.2d 11 (Tex.Civ.App., 1963, ref., n.r.e.); Henderson v. Smith, 354 S.W.2d 429 (Tex.Civ.App., 1962, no writ hist .). A jury could, however, consider the conduct of defendant and the position of the bus as circumsta......
-
Sonnier v. Ramsey
...S.W.2d 282, err. dism., judgm. cor.; Tidy Didy Wash, Inc. v. Barnett, Tex.Civ.App., 246 S.W.2d 303, err. ref., n.r.e.; Henderson v. Smith, Tex.Civ.App., 354 S.W.2d 429, n.w.h.; Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. v. Day, 145 Tex. 277, 197 S.W.2d We believe that the inferences and conclusions which migh......
-
Daugherty v. McDonald
...S.W.2d 100 (Tex.Civ.App., 1959, ref., n.r.e.); Austin Fire Ins. Co. v. Adams-Childers Co., 246 S.W. 365 (Tex.Com.App., 1923); Henderson v. Smith, 354 S.W.2d 429 (Tex.Civ.App., 1962, no writ In view of the evidence, we think defendant cannot seriously contend that issue No. 1 should have bee......