McIver v. Gloria

• Decision Date: 24 March 1943
• Docket Number: No. 8032.,8032.
• Parties: McIVER et al. v. GLORIA.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

169 S.W.2d 710

McIVER et al. v. GLORIA.

No. 8032.

Supreme Court of Texas.

March 24, 1943.

Error to Court of Civil Appeals of Fourth Supreme Judicial District.

Action by Inez Gloria against J. D. McIver and A. F. Ramos for injuries sustained by plaintiff in automobile collision. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appealed to the Court of Civil Appeals. The Court of Civil Appeals, 163 S.W.2d 890, affirmed the judgment, and the defendants bring error.

Judgments affirmed.

O. Shelley Evans, of San Antonio, and Chas. E. Crenshaw, of Austin, for appellants.

Harry J. Schulz, of George West, for appellee.

SHARP, Justice.

Inez Gloria sued J. D. McIver and A. F. Ramos for damages for personal injuries. Gloria alleged, and the jury found, that he was injured in 1939 when a small pick-up truck in which he was riding was negligently struck from behind by a larger truck belonging to McIver and operated by Ramos, McIver's employee, within the scope of his employment. Based upon the answers of the jury to special issues submitted, the trial court entered judgment for Inez Gloria for $5,500. This judgment was affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals. 163 S.W.2d 890. The principal question is whether there was any evidence to justify the trial court in instructing the jury to take into consideration plaintiff's loss of future earning capacity in its calculation of plaintiff's damages. The writ of error was granted on the contention that there was no evidence to sustain the finding of the jury on this question.

Plaintiff alleged that before his injury he was gainfully employed in the business of farming, and was earning approximately $2,000 per year. The evidence showed that plaintiff was a Mexican tenant farmer, unable to speak or understand the English language. He was forty-eight years old at the time of the trial, and had a life expectancy of 23.36 years. He had a family of nine children, including one son of seventeen and another of twenty. Before his injury he was in good health and able to do a hard day's work. He had been farming since he was twenty-one, but was not farming in 1939, the year he was injured. In 1931 he began farming on the halves for one Rocco, and stayed there six years. He planted sixty acres of cotton and ten acres of corn. At first he made as high as twenty-two to twenty-four bales of cotton. For the whole period he averaged thirteen to sixteen bales. In 1937 he left Rocco's place and farmed for Mr. Charley Campbell, raising cotton and corn. Usually he just worked his land, but in 1931 he worked a little cutting cane for Rocco, making $2.50 and $3 a day. At other times he made $1 or $1.50 working by the day. Since his injury plaintiff has been unable to do any work. He was injured in both legs so seriously that he will never walk again. His doctor testified that in one leg, which was broken, there is only a small amount of union, so that it will probably break down if he tries to use it. The jury assessed his damages at $5,500, including $1,250 for hospital and medical expenses.

Defendants contend that this evidence fails to furnish any data that would enable the jury to reach an intelligent conclusion on the value of plaintiff's lost earning capacity, since it does not show the money value of the crops he raised, or what part of them was produced by his own labor. We find no merit in this contention. After a careful investigation of the authorities, we are of the opinion that the trial court correctly instructed the jury to consider plaintiff's loss of earning capacity. In a personal injury suit the amount which the plaintiff might have earned in the future is always uncertain, and must be left largely to the sound judgment and discretion of the jury. However, the verdict must be based on something more than mere conjecture. It must be an intelligent judgment, based upon such facts as are available. Even where the injury is of such a serious and permanent nature that loss of earning capacity is the necessary result, proof is required to show the extent and amount of the damages. International & G. N. R. Co. v. Simcock, 81 Tex. 503, 17 S.W. 47. No general rule can be laid down, except that each case must be judged upon its peculiar facts, and the damages proved with that degree of certainty of which the case is susceptible. Dallas Consolidated Electric St. R. Co. v. Motwiller, 101 Tex. 515, 109 S.W. 918. Under this rule the required certainty of the proof will necessarily vary. Where plaintiff is a child, who has never earned any money, the jury must determine the value of its lost earning capacity altogether from their common knowledge and sense of justice. Texas & P. R. Co. v. O'Donnell, 58 Tex. 27; Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. v. Johnson, Tex.Civ.App., 37 S.W. 771, writ refused; 13 Tex.Jur. 400. Likewise, where plaintiff is a housewife, the actual money value of her services need not be proved. Gainesville, H. & W. R. Co. v. Lacy, 86 Tex. 244, 24 S.W. 269; 13 Tex.Jur. 402. On the other hand, where plaintiff is employed at a fixed wage or salary, the amount of his previous earnings ordinarily must be shown. Northern Texas Traction Co. v. Brannon, Tex.Civ.App., 61 S.W.2d 156; and...