Matlock v. Hooge

Decision Date06 February 1963
Docket NumberNo. 14058,14058
Citation365 S.W.2d 386
PartiesJ. N. MATLOCK, Appellant, v. L. A. HOOGE, d/b/a L. A. Hooge Co., et al., Appellees.
CourtTexas Court of Appeals

Prickett & Tracy, San Antonio, for appellant.

Groce & Hebdon, San Antonio, for appellees.

MURRAY, Chief Justice.

This suit was instituted by James Norman Matlock against L. A. Hooge, d/b/a L. A. Hooge Co., and Charles L. Pattillo, seeking to recover damages for personal injury sustained in an automobile accident near Edinburg, Texas. The automobile was owned by Hooge Company and was being driven by Pattillo at the time of the collision. Matlock, his twelve-year-old nephew, and one Ramirez were passengers in the Volkswagen automobile which Pattillo was driving, and when he fell asleep the Volkswagen struck a palm tree and caused the injuries complained of by Matlock. The trial court granted defendants' motion for a summary judgment and Matlock has prosecuted this appeal.

Matlock contends that he was not a guest in the Volkswagen at the time of the accident, within the meaning of our 'Guest Statute,' Art. 6701b, Section 1, Vernon's Ann.Civ.Stats., but was a 'business invitee.' Pattillo was an employee of Hooge Co., and was manager of the Company's branch office in Edinburg at the time. Hooge Co. was a buyer and seller of vegetables in the Valley, and it was Pattillo's duty, among other things, to ship the produce out of the Valley. This produce was shipped either by truck or train. Hooge Co.'s main office was in San Antonio, Texas. Matlock was an independent trucker and hauled produce around the country. He had done a lot of hauling for Hooge Co., but had made only one other trip to the Lower Rio Grande Valley. Matlock and Pattillo had been friends for several years. On May 15, 1961, Matlock arrived in San Antonio with a load of produce for Hooge Co., and after unloading he was advised that Hooge Co. had no return load for him, but there was plenty of hauling from the Valley. Matlock decided to continue on to Edinburg and pick up a load there. He arrived late in the afternoon and went to the branch office of Hooge Co., where he contacted Pattillo and asked if he could give him a load. Pattillo took Matlock in his car and they went to several sheds to see if Pattillo could buy a load for Matlock to haul, but was unsuccessful. Matlock then asked Pattillo about going to Reynosa, Old Mexico, to get something to eat. Pattillo informed him that he couldn't go until he finished his work, and that he would pick him and his nephew up later at the motel where Matlock was staying, and they would go to Reynosa. Afterwards Pattillo went by the motel in the Volkswagen for Matlock and his nephew, they proceeded to the office of Hooge Co., where Pattillo picked up a check which he delivered to a hauler somewhere south of Edinburg, and then drove on across the Rio Grande to Reynosa, Mexico, where they had...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Nehring v. Russell
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • 7 d5 Julho d5 1978
    ...participants, the "passenger" then becomes a "guest" within the meaning of the statute for the duration of that trip. Matlock v. Hooge, Tex.Civ.App.1963, 365 S.W.2d 386, reh. den.; Robe v. Ager, 1964, 80 S.D. 597, 129 N.W.2d 47, reh. den. Assuming, as we must, the truth of the evidence pres......
  • Berentsen v. Bellinghausen, 206
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • 26 d4 Maio d4 1966
    ...McCarty v. Moss, Tex.Civ.App., 225 S.W.2d 883, writ ref.; Sims v. Smith, Tex.Civ.App., 332 S.W.2d 99, writ ref. n.r.e.; Matlock v. Hooge, Tex.Civ.App., 365 S.W.2d 386, writ ref. n.r.e.; Snyder v. Jones, Tex.Civ.App., 392 S.W.2d 504, ref. Cases holding that a fact issue of gross negligence w......
  • Dietrich v. F. R. Young Company, 14749
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • 3 d4 Março d4 1966
    ...the business discussion had not been concluded as thoroughly in this case as it had in the Lochausen case.' See also Matlock v. L. A. Hogge, Tex.Civ.App., 365 S.W.2d 386, writ ref., n.r.e.; McCarty v. Moss, Tex.Civ.App., 225 S.W.2d 883, writ ref.; Wills v. Buchanan, Tex.Civ.App., 358 S.W.2d......
  • Jones v. McCoy, 5224
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • 29 d4 Março d4 1973
    ...going to sleep could constitute gross negligence as is required for a guest to recover under Article 6701b Vernon's Ann.Tex.Civ.St. Matlock v. Hooge, Tex.Civ.App., NRE, 365 S.W.2d 386; Wood v. Orts, Tex.Civ.App., NWH,182 S.W.2d 139; Napier v. Mooneyham, Tex.Civ.App., Er.Dismd., 94 S.W.2d Co......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT