Henrie v. Compton, 16317
| Decision Date | 27 April 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 16317,16317 |
| Citation | 357 S.W.2d 589 |
| Parties | Louis C. HENRIE, Appellant, v. William O. COMPTON et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Harris, Anderson, Henley & Rhodes, Dallas, Stone, Parker, Snakard, Friedman
& Brown, John G. Street, Jr., and James A. McMullen III, Fort Worth, for appellant.
Rawlings, Sayers, Scurlock & Eidson, Brown & Murray, and M. Hendricks Brown, Fort Worth, for appellees.
Louis C. Henrie sued William O. Compton, Mrs. William O. Compton, Tommie G. Mercer, and Mrs. G. E. Mercer, individually and doing business as Tarrant Distributing Company, for damages for personal injuries and property loss resulting from a collision between a truck owned and operated by the plaintiff and a truck belonging to the defendants and being operated by their employee, Edward Castillo. Upon a jury verdict judgment was rendered for the defendants and the plaintiff appeals.
Appellant was driving his truck east on Vickery Street. The truck and cargo weighed about 50,000 pounds. Appellees' truck was traveling east on the same street, ahead of appellant's truck, and on the extreme south or right side of the street, when it turned to the left and was struck by appellant's truck.
The jury found appellant's damages in the amount of $30,500.00. It found that appellees' driver was negligent in bringing his truck to a sudden stop after beginning the left turn, and that such negligence was a proximate cause of the collision; and in answer to issues Nos. 18 and 19 the jury found that the rate of speed at which appellant operated his truck as he approached appellees' truck was negligence, and was a proximate cause.
Appellant seeks a reversal on his contentions that there was prejudicial jury misconduct; that he was deprived of a fair and impartial trial because one of the jurors was disqualified; and that it was error to admit a statement made by appellant to the Industrial Accident Board in regard to the circumstances of the accident.
On the voir dire examination of the jury panel, appellant asked all the prospective jurors whether they were biased or prejudiced in any way against any such suits as this; and he asked that any member who felt that he was biased or prejudiced to hold up his hand. No one held up his hand. Mr. Fugate said that he was not biased and that he would give a fair verdict. He was taken on the jury.
According to the testimony of the juror Mrs. Kanouse, on the hearing of the motion for a new trial, 10 jurors first voted 'No' on issue No. 18, that is, that the rate of speed at which appellant was driving his truck was not negligence; after that vote was taken, Fugate told the jurors that 'we always had to keep foremost in our mind that the defendant was innocent until proven without a reasonable doubt that he was guilty, and he stated this all the way through our discussions both days that we were in session;' he said that if there was any reasonable doubt it had to be given to the defendant; he made that statement more than once, 'all the way through;' witness changed her vote, and told the jurors that maybe she had been wrong, and she would give the defendant the benefit of the doubt; Fugate said three or four times during the two days deliberations that he did not believe in such suits; 'we hadn't been in the jury room more than an hour at the very most when he made the first statement that * * * in other words, he wanted to hurry and get it over with, that it was absured to him and that he just didn't believe in carrying suits through;' she believed he made that statement before any issues were answered; 'to told us that he had been in car accident and had been laid up for a matter of a few months, and * * * but he certainly didn't bring his case to trial or sue anyone; that he didn't believe in it, and that he and his family ate pancakes for quite a long time because of the accident;' that statement was made before issue No 18 was answered; the juror Mrs. Miles told Fugate that he was prejudiced; during their deliberations Fugate said that he would not want anyone to bleed him for money; Fugate was very definitely the 'low man' on the jury; he put an amount for appellant's damages on the board and said that is what it should be, and that he would not agree to anything else.
The juror Mrs. Miles testified in substance as follows: Soon after the jury retired to deliberate, Fugate said he did not believe such suits should be brought; before any issues had been answered, witness said to Fugate, ; he said he was in an accident, and 'he didn't sue because * * * he just didn't think that was right, and that his family ate pancakes, I believe he made that expression, for three months;' before a verdict was reached he said that he would not want anyone to bleed him for money; after a vote had been taken on No. 18, when witness answered 'No', Fugate said the jurors were supposed to give the defendant the benefit of any reasonable doubt.
Fugate testified that he told the jurors that the reason he did not sue in connection with his accident was that the other party had no insurance and his lawyer said he could not collect; he did not tell them that they had to answer the issues on the basis that they had to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt; when asked if he made any statement 'along that line' he answered: 'I did * * * I do recall that * * * it may be two or three times, and I don't recall on what issues there were, but I do recall they were pertaining to, I think, the defendant at that time, that in my opinion I couldn't find anyone guilty unless someone had proved them so beyond a reasonable doubt and in line with the credible testimony, and I still contend that, and I'll always contend that;' he told the jurors that in his opinion the defendant 'should be given the benefit of a reasonable doubt * * * and that's how it would influence my own opinion, and I did not try to impress it that it should influence anyone else'; a juror said that witness was prejudiced; he perhaps made the statement that he did not want anybody to bleed him for money; ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Compton v. Henrie
...conduct is here in question, was disqualified from sitting on the jury under Article 2134, § 4 of Vernon's Annotated Civil Statutes. 357 S.W.2d 589. The Petitioner, Compton, urges that Fugate was not disqualified under Article 2134, § 4 of Vernon's Annotated Civil Statutes. The Respondent, ......