Houston Electric Co. v. Potter
Decision Date | 17 December 1931 |
Docket Number | No. 9622.,9622. |
Citation | 51 S.W.2d 754 |
Parties | HOUSTON ELECTRIC CO. v. POTTER et al. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Harris County; Allan B. Hannay, Judge.
Action by Verna Alice Potter and husband against the Houston Electric Company and another. From an adverse judgment, the named defendant appeals.
Judgment reversed, and cause remanded.
W. M. Ryan, G. G. Gannon, and Baker, Botts, Andrews & Wharton, all of Houston, for appellant.
King, Wood & Morrow, of Houston, for appellees Potter.
Vinson, Elkins, Sweeton & Weems and C. M. Hightower, all of Houston, for appellee Earl T. Zylicz.
In view of the fact that the plaintiffs are not on this appeal contesting the judgment rendered in favor of the defendant Earl Zylicz, we deem the following statement of the nature and result of the suit sufficient for the purpose of disposing of this appeal:
This suit was instituted by the filing of a petition in the 113th district court of Harris county, Tex., wherein it is recited that "plaintiffs, Verna Alice Potter, joined pro forma herein by her husband, W. D. Potter," were bringing suit against Houston Electric Company and Earl T. Zylicz.
It is alleged that "plaintiff, Verna Alice Potter, is now, as she was on and prior to October 31st, 1928, the wife of the plaintiff W. D. Potter."
It is alleged that, while Verna Alice Potter was riding in an automobile belonging to Earl T. Zylicz, being driven by the wife of said Zylicz, as a guest, a bus owned by the Houston Electric Company was negligently driven by its driver against said automobile, in that said driver failed to have the bus under reasonable and proper control under the surrounding circumstances; that said driver failed to keep a reasonable lookout for approaching vehicles at the point of the collision and without giving warning by blowing the horn of the bus, or otherwise, of his approach; that the collision occurred at the intersection of two streets in the city of Houston; and that the driver of the bus approached and attempted to cross such intersection at a high and dangerous rate of speed in the light of the attending circumstances.
It was alleged that Verna Alice Potter, by reason of said collision, as a result of the negligence of the driver of the bus, suffered great mental and physical anguish and pain (setting out specifically the nature of her injuries), to her damage in the sum of $25,000.
The allegations above stated were followed by the following allegations:
Further pleading in the alternative, the electric company alleged as follows:
"E. T. Zylicz owned the automobile in question which collided with the defendant's bus at the time and place complained of in the petition of plaintiffs in this cause, and he maintained and operated said car as a `family car' for the use, benefit and enjoyment of his family including his wife, Mrs. E. T. Zylicz; that at the time and occasion complained of in this suit Mrs. E. T. Zylicz was driving the automobile with the permission and under the authorization of her husband, E. T. Zylicz; that in driving the car at the time and place complained of in the petition of plaintiffs herein, Mrs. E. T. Zylicz was negligent in the driving of said automobile and the manner and way in which she drove same before and at the time of said collision and had it not been for her negligence the collision would not have happened; that the negligence of Mrs. E. T. Zylicz in the driving of the automobile of the defendant E. T. Zylicz was a proximate cause of the collision which happened between the said automobile and a bus of this defendant at the time and place complained of in the petition of plaintiffs herein and the resulting injuries, if any, therefrom to Mrs. Verna Alice Potter, and the defendant, Houston Electric Company by way of plea over and against the said E. T. Zylicz, respectfully aver and plead that if the driver of its bus was negligent in any respect complained of in the petition of plaintiffs herein (which is expressly denied) that the negligence, if any, of such driver was merely passive whereas the negligence of Mrs. E. T. Zylicz was active and had it not been for the active negligence of Mrs. E. T. Zylicz at the time and place in question Mrs. Verna Alice Potter would not have received the injuries complained of and the collision would not have happened; and the Houston Electric Company pleads that if any judgment be recovered by the plaintiffs either or both against this defendant Houston Electric Company that it have judgment for like amount over and against the said E. T. Zylicz; or in the alternative, defendant pleads that under all of the facts and circumstances surrounding the happening of the collision between the automobile of E. T. Zylicz on the occasion in question and the bus of this defendant that the negligence of the driver of the automobile, Mrs. E. T. Zylicz,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Grocers Supply Co. v. Stuckey
...130 Tex. 338, 109 S.W.2d 160; St. Louis S. W. R. Co. v. Freedman, 18 Tex.Civ.App. 553, 46 S.W. 101, error refused; Houston Electric Co. v. Potter, Tex.Civ.App., 51 S.W.2d 754, error dismissed; Ft. Worth & D. C. R. Co. v. Smithers, Tex.Civ.App., 228 S.W. (3) The insistence, under proposition......
-
West v. State
...trial, because of the appeal to the self-interest of the jury the argument was held to be reversible error. In Houston Electric Co. v. Potter, Tex. Civ.App., 51 S.W.2d 754, 764, a suit by Potter to recover damages suffered by his in an automobile collision, plaintiff's counsel in his closin......
-
Moncada v. Snyder
...is thought to find support in these holdings: Marek v. Southern Enterprises of Texas, 128 Tex. 377, 99 S.W.2d 594; Houston Electric Co. v. Potter, Tex.Civ.App., 51 S.W.2d 754, error dismissed; Mitchell v. Napier, 22 Tex. 120; Mrs. Baird's Bakery v. Davis, Tex.Civ.App., 54 S.W.2d 1031; Weste......
-
Younger Bros. v. Power
...province of the jury and the trial court. St. Louis S. W. Ry. Co. v. Freedman, 18 Tex.Civ.App. 553, 46 S.W. 101; Houston Electric Co. v. Potter, Tex.Civ.App., 51 S.W.2d 754; Wilson v. Freeman, 108 Tex. 121, 185 S.W. 993, Ann.Cas.1918D, 1203; Fort Worth & D. C. Ry. Co. v. Smithers, Tex.Civ.A......