Ingram v. Texas Industries, Inc., 16675

• Decision Date: 22 October 1965
• Docket Number: No. 16675,16675
• Citation: 396 S.W.2d 423
• Parties: Allen E. INGRAM, Appellant, v. TEXAS INDUSTRIES, INC., Appellee.
• Court: Texas Civil Court of Appeals

Page 423

396 S.W.2d 423

Allen E. INGRAM, Appellant, v.TEXAS INDUSTRIES, INC., Appellee.

No. 16675.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, Fort Worth.

Oct. 22, 1965.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 3, 1965.

Parkhill, Watson & Grantham, Grand Prairie, Harris, Anderson, Henley, Shields & Rhodes, and L. W. Anderson, Dallas, for appellant.

Simon, Crowley, Wright, Ratliff & Miller, Fort Worth, for intervenor Texas Employer's Ins. Assn.

Strasburger, Price, Kelton, Miller & Martin, and Royal H. Brin, Jr., and Gordon Macdowell, Dallas, for appellee.

MASSEY, Chief Justice.

This is a suit for damages for personal injuries to Allen E. Ingram against Texas Industries, Inc.The latter operated a 'cement mixer' truck of the type on which the 'mixer' turned more or less continuously.Therefrom ready-mixed concrete was distributed and deposited by a movable chute when fresh concrete was being poured.Ingram was standing by the truck in a position lying inside the arc in which the chute swung-when it did swing around and strike him.The truck was unattended and standing in a position where the side thereof, toward which the chute swung, was on ground lower than that on the opposite side.

For our purposes there is no question but that Texas Industries, Inc. was guilty of negligence amounting to a proximate cause of Ingram's injuries in that its employee negligently left the truck unattended and without having anchored or fastened the chute into position so that it would not swing around.However, the jury found that Ingram failed to keep a proper lookout for his own safety prior to the occurrence and negligently stood too close to the truck.Each was found to have amounted to a proximate cause of the occurrence and the resulting injuries.

Based thereupon the trial court entered a take nothing judgment.Ingram appealed on the theory that there was no evidence to support these jury findings.

(1, 2) The jury is not only the judge of the facts and circumstances proved but may draw reasonable inferences and deductions from the evidence adduced before it.Therefore its findings may not be disregarded, under the provisions of Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 301, 'Judgments', if the record discloses any evidence of probative value which, with inferences that may be properly drawn therefrom, will reasonably support the same.Lynch v. Ricketts, 158 Tex. 487, 314 S.W.2d 273, 276(1958).

(3, 4) When a situation suggests investigation and inspection in order that its dangers may fully be disclosed, one is under the...