Myers v. Velasquez
| Decision Date | 03 December 1926 |
| Docket Number | No. 4802.,4802. |
| Parties | MYERS v. VELASQUEZ et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Edward B. Ward, of Corpus Christi, Tex., for plaintiff in error.
E. P. Scott, of Corpus Christi, Tex., for defendants in error.
Before WALKER, BRYAN, and FOSTER, Circuit Judges.
This was a suit to recover damages for personal injuries and also for damages to a wagon and harness, brought by defendants in error against plaintiff in error. The parties will hereafter be referred to as they appeared in the District Court.
The petition alleges in substance that plaintiffs were riding in a one horse wagon on a public highway; that defendant was driving an automobile along the same road, and recklessly and carelessly drove his car up from the rear and against the wagon, and threw plaintiffs with great violence out of said wagon and onto the ground, and broke up and demolished the said wagon and the harness; that the fall injured the left eye of plaintiff Juana R. de Velasquez, causing her to permanently lose the sight of her left eye. Damages in the sum of $15,000 were claimed for personal injuries, $250 for doctor's bills, $50 for damages to the wagon, and $25 damages to the harness.
Defendant denied the allegations of negligence, and set up, among other grounds of contributory negligence, that at the time of the accident there was a good road running parallel and near to the road on which the accident occurred, and on which horse-drawn vehicles usually traveled, and which few automobiles used, while the road on which the accident was alleged to have happened was much traveled by automobiles; that, knowing these facts, plaintiffs selected the more dangerous road.
The case went to the jury, which returned a verdict for $858, divided as follows: Express wagon, $43; harness, $15; doctor's bill, $50; physical damages, $750. It is difficult to understand why the verdict for damages for the physical injuries was so small, in view of the allegations of the petition; but, as the evidence is not in the record, we are unable to say whether the injury was as extensive and severe as alleged. However, we are not now concerned with that view of the case.
The principal error assigned is to the action of the court in excluding evidence tendered by defendant to show that there was a parallel road that could have been used by plaintiffs and to the remarks of the court in excluding such testimony. The remarks of the court objected...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Yerger v. Smith
...App.), 188 S.W. 1125; Boyer v. North End Drayage Co. (Mo. App.), 67 S.W.2d 769; Hannah v. Butts (Mo. App.), 14 S.W.2d 31; Myers v. Velasquez (C. C. A.), 16 F.2d 111; Fullenwider v. Brawner (Ky.), 6 S.W.2d Bombard v. Newton (Vt.), 111 A. 510, 11 A. L. R. 1402; Meredith v. Kidd (La. App.), 14......
-
Dow Chemical Co. v. M/V Gulf Seas, 78-3124
...law. Id., 614. See also, Dunscombe v. Sayle, 5 Cir. 1965, 340 F.2d 311 (appeal "patently frivolous"; no facts given); Myers v. Velasquez, 5 Cir. 1926, 16 F.2d 111, 112 (appellate issue unsupported by allegations in brief or The Judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED. * Rule 18, 5 Cir.; ......
- Universal SS Co. v. American SS Co.