Owens v. Rogers
| Decision Date | 05 November 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. B--1254,B--1254 |
| Citation | 446 S.W.2d 865 |
| Parties | Zollie OWENS, Petitioner, v. Ruby Lyles ROGERS et vir, Respondent. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Ramey, Brelsford, Flock, Devereux & Hutchins, Richard Grainger and Mike Hatchell, Tyler, for petitioner.
Price & Fisher, Jack N. Price, Longview, Jackson, for respondent.
Plaintiff-respondent Rogers brought this suit against defendant-petitioner Owens, alleging damages and injuries resulting from a rear-end automobile collision wherein the automobile driven by defendant collided with the rear-end of the automobile driven by plaintiff. The trial court jury found that defendant was guilty of two acts of negligence which were proximate causes of the collision and that the amount of damages resulting therefrom was $3,905.55. However, the jury also found that plaintiff was guilty of three acts of negligence which were proximate causes of the collision, and therefore the trial court ordered that plaintiff take nothing. Upon plaintiff's appeal, the Court of Civil Appeals reversed and remanded for a new trial. 440 S.W.2d 406. We reverse the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals and affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The collision in question occurred on a four lane divided highway. Plaintiff was traveling north in the inside lane next to the center stripe. Defendant was also traveling north in the inside lane and was directly behind plaintiff. In the outside lane was another automobile driven by Harding, which defendant had overtaken and slightly passed immediately before the collision with plaintiff. The collision occurred when defendant, contemplating changing into the outside lane, glanced backwards twice to his right to locate the Harding automobile. Upon looking forward after the second glance, defendant discovered that he was overtaking plaintiff's automobile to the extent that a collision was about to result. Defendant then turned his automobile to the right, attempting to change into the outside lane in front of the Harding automobile, but the left front of defendant's automobile struck the right rear of plaintiff's automobile. Defendant testified that apparently plaintiff either stopped or considerably slowed her automobile in front of him. Plaintiff testified that she did reduce her speed but she was unsure about the extent of the reduction. The jury found that defendant was negligent in two respects: failing to keep a proper lookout and following too closely. The jury also found that plaintiff was negligent in three respects: Slowing her automobile without giving a visible signal of her intention to slow down, operating her automobile at such a slow speed as to impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic and failing to keep a proper lookout. The jury found that each of the five acts of negligence was a proximate...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Arkoma Basin Expl. v. Fmf Associates 1990-a
...P. 53.2(f). 19. 118 S.W.3d 445, 457. 20. See, e.g., Cropper v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., 754 S.W.2d 646, 648 (Tex. 1988); Owens v. Rogers, 446 S.W.2d 865, 866 (Tex. 1969); Rosas v. Shafer, 415 S.W.2d 889, 889-90 (Tex. 21. See Biggers v. Cont'l Bus Sys., Inc., 157 Tex. 351, 303 S.W.2d 359, 36......
-
Southwest Bank & Trust Co. v. Executive Sportsman Ass'n, 17756
...and the judgment properly rendered on it if there was any evidence to support a finding favorable to plaintiff. Owens v. Rogers, 446 S.W.2d 865 (Tex.Sup. 1969); Garza v. Alviar, 395 S.W.2d 821 We overrule these points because we find that the issue of market value is raised by the opinion t......
-
Franco v. Graham
...answers thereto is of no consequence to the ultimate disposition of this appeal insofar as Rafael Franco is concerned. Owens v. Rogers, 446 S.W.2d 865 (Tex.Sup.1969); Southern Pine Lumber Co. v. Andrade, 132 Tex. 372, 124 S.W.2d 334 (1939); Cummings v. Jess Edwards, Inc., 445 S.W.2d 767 (Te......
-
R. G. McClung Cotton Co. v. Cotton Concentration Co.
...the jury's answer, since the issue was properly submitted if there was any evidence to support an affirmative finding. Owens v. Rogers, 446 S.W.2d 865 (Tex.Sup.1969) . Though the point is couched in the language of a cross-point complaining of the submission of the issue rather than a count......