Lawson v. Producers' & Refiners' Corporation
| Citation | 9 S.W.2d 1026 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Tennessee |
| Decision Date | 13 October 1928 |
| Parties | LAWSON v. PRODUCERS' & REFINERS' CORPORATION OF TENNESSEE. |
Action by Beecher Lawson against the Producers' & Refiners' Corporation of Tennessee. Plaintiff recovered judgment in justice court, and on appeal judgment was rendered in circuit court for defendant, which judgment was affirmed by Court of Appeals, and plaintiff brings error. Reversed and remanded to circuit court for new trial.
Cantrell, Meacham & Moon, of Chattanooga, for plaintiff in error.
Sizer, Chambliss & Sizer, of Chattanooga, for defendant in error.
Lawson sued the defendant corporation before a justice of the peace to recover $500, damages to his automobile truck caused by the alleged negligence of the driver of defendant's truck in running same into his truck. The justice of the peace entered judgment in favor of plaintiff for $500, and defendant appealed to the circuit court, where a jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $500.
At the conclusion of the plaintiff's proof, counsel for defendant moved for a directed verdict in this language:
"If your honor please, I think on the plaintiff's own statement we are entitled to a directed verdict on the ground that he ran into the side of the truck."
This motion was overruled and defendant excepted.
At the conclusion of all the evidence, counsel for defendant stated:
"I want to renew my motion for a directed verdict."
This motion was likewise overruled and an exception taken.
Later a motion for a new trial was filed and argued before the court, one of the grounds thereof being in this language:
"Because there is no evidence to connect the defendant, Producers' & Refiners' Corporation, with the ownership or the operation of the truck involved in the accident out of which this case arises."
The trial court granted a new trial upon said ground, the order reciting:
"It is therefore ordered and adjudged that the verdict of the jury and the judgment entered thereon be and the same hereby are set aside, and the defendant is granted a new trial upon the ground stated, and the court here and now orders a verdict directed in favor of the defendant upon this said ground."
Thereupon plaintiff filed a motion for a new trial, which was overruled, and an appeal prayed and granted to the Court of Appeals, where the judgment of the trial court was affirmed.
Plaintiff testified as follows:
The driver of defendant's truck was introduced, and testified that he was on a trip to deliver a tank of oil to a particular dealer, and detailed his version of the accident. Strange as it may appear, counsel for the plaintiff did not ask this driver who the truck belonged to, or who he was employed by, or whose business he was engaged in at the time. Counsel seemed to have assumed that no controversy existed as to this truck belonging to the defendant corporation, and therefore neglected and failed to introduce proof that the truck belonged to the defendant, or was operated in the defendant's business at the time of the accident; and the fact that the plaintiff testified that the collision occurred with the defendant Parco Oil Refining Company's truck was not sufficient to show that the truck was the property of the Producers' & Refiners' Corporation of Tennessee.
Counsel for plaintiff was further misled no doubt, by a special request made by counsel for defendant in this language:
"The court is requested to charge the jury that even though the defendant was driving its car on the wrong side of the road, if the plaintiff, by the exercise of reasonable care, could have seen...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Merritt v. Grant
...alone. The issue concerning gross contributory negligence, therefore, is not properly before us. Lawson v. Producers' and Refiners' Corp. of Tenn., 157 Tenn. 455, 9 S.W.2d 1026 (1928); 75 Am.Jur.2d Trial Section 470 at 488-89 (1974); see Jensvold v. Chicago, Great Western R. Co., 236 Iowa 7......
-
Travelers Ins. Co. v. Ansley
...proper showing, to introduce testimony to" supply the deficiency in the evidence pointed out by the motion. Lawson v. Producers' & Refiners' Corp., 157 Tenn. 455, 9 S.W.2d 1026, 1027. The rule being bottomed upon this reason, obviously the spirit of its requirements could not be met by inco......
-
Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America v. Richardson
...be confined to the grounds thus specified." Tennessee Cent. Railway Co. v. Zearing, 2 Tenn.App. 451, 455; Lawson v. Producers' & Refiners' Corp., 157 Tenn. 455, 459, 9 S.W.2d 1026; Ballow v. Postal Telegraph Cable Co., 12 Tenn.App. 348, The defendant's motion for peremptory instructions in ......
-
Friedman v. Georgia Showcase Co., 2.
...grounds assigned in the motion and such additional grounds as the court may have added upon his own motion. Lawson v. Producers & Refiners Corp., 157 Tenn. 455, 459, 9 S.W.2d 1026; Tennessee Central Ry. Co. v. Zearing, 2 Tenn.App. 451; Ballow v. Postal Telegraph & Cable Co., 12 Tenn.App. 34......