Reaves v. Brooks, 7844

• Decision Date: 17 June 1968
• Docket Number: No. 7844,7844
• Parties: C. A. REAVES, Appellant, v. Edward BROOKS, Edwin Brooks, Ronnie Brooks & Donnie Brooks, Minors By & Through their next Frient, C. G. White, Appellees. . Amarillo
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

Page 926

430 S.W.2d 926

C. A. REAVES, Appellant, v. Edward BROOKS, Edwin Brooks, Ronnie Brooks & Donnie Brooks Minors By & Through their next Frient, C. G White, Appellees.

No. 7844.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas Amarillo.

June 17, 1968.

Rehearing Denied June 17, 1968.

Gibson, Ochsner, Harlan, Kinney & Morris, Amarillo, J. Hadley Edgar, Jr., Amarillo, of counsel, for appellant.

Dean Dunlap and Joseph H. Pool, Amarillo, for appellees.

CHAPMAN, Justice.

This is in lieu of our opinion announced an April 29, 1968.

On July 19, 1967, Sheldon Spencer, a truck driver employee for defendant, C. A. Reaves, of Collin County, Texas, was crossing Amarillo Blvd. East on Evergreen in the City of Amarillo when an automobile being driven by William Isaac Allen collided with the Reaves' truck, striking it '* * * right in front of the rear duals on the trailer' and about 20 feet from the front fender of the cab. Allen, the driver, and Wanda Lou White Brooks, a passenger in the Allen driven automobile, were killed by the impact. Suit was filed against C. A. Reaves by the four minor children of Mrs. Brooks, deceased, through their uncle and next friend, C. G. White.

Defendant Reaves filed his plea of privilege to be sued in his domiciliary county. Plaintiffs controverted, alleging Exceptions 9 and 9a, Art. 1995, ¹ to the right of defendant to be sued in the county of his residence. In a trial to the court the plea was overruled. Appeal is perfected upon points urging no evidence and factually insufficient evidence to sustain venue in Potter County under any subdivision.

Plaintiffs alleged (1) improper lookout; (2) improper control; (3) failure to yield the right-of-way; (4) failure to stop in obedience to a stop sign; (5) failure to stop the truck prior to striking the automobile; (6) failure to stop the truck when approaching a stop sign; and (7) driving the truck into the path of the automobile.

There is not a scintilla of evidence of negligence or proximate cause under allegations (2), (4) and (6). Since the evidence is without contradiction that the car struck the truck instead of the truck striking the car, there is not any evidence to support allegation (5). This leaves improper lookout, failure to yield the right-of-way and driving the truck into the path of the automobile.

All appellees proved was that the truck had the three lanes on the right side of the highway blocked while in the process of turning out of the intersection to go east when the collision occurred, and that '* * as far as we could tell' the truck driver never saw the car before the collision. The witness was not at the scene of the collision until after it happened and did not talk to anyone who was except the truck driver. No effort was made to prove any facts known by Spencer; he was not used as a witness, and so far as the record shows his deposition was not even taken. There were not any skid marks by any vehicle before the car hit the truck. The statement that the truck driver never saw the car before the collision 'as far as we could tell' is no probative evidence of negligence in the absence of some probative evidence as to how the witness could tell. The burden was not on defendant to prove that Spencer was keeping a proper lookout. The burden was upon plaintiffs to prove by a preponderance of the evidence ² he was not keeping proper lookout.

Though appellant's petition and controverting affidavit allege Exception 9, Art. 1995, that exception does not appear to have been pursued any further. There clearly is not any probative evidence to establish any alleged crime or trespass as an exception under Art. 1995. Our Supreme Court has held: 'Plaintiffs were required to prove 'that the crime * * * was in fact committed and that it was committed in the county where the suit is pending," citing Compton v. Elliott, supra.

'A 'trespass,' within the meaning of subdivision 9 of R.S. Art. 1995, includes injuries to persons or property resulting from wrongful acts, either wilfully inflicted or the result of affirmative, active negligence upon the part of the wrongdoer, as distinguished from injuries that are the result of a mere omission of duty.' City of Mineral Wells v. McDonald, 141 Tex. 113, 170 S.W.2d 466 (Tex.1943), citing Meredith v. McClendon, 130 Tex. 527, 111 S.W.2d 1062 (Tex.1938); Connor v. Saunders, 81 Tex. 633, 17 S.W. 236 (1891).

Where a truck was traveling at a slow rate of speed while proceeding through an intersection, the driver of an automobile was a half block away and traveling only thirty miles an hour but within 25 yards of the truck when he saw it and applied his brakes, yet struck the rear end of the truck after it was practically across the intersection, the Waco Court of Civil Appeals has held an action could not be maintained against the nonresident owner of the truck under Exception 9. R. P. Lightfoot Co. v. Hart, 224 S.W.2d 726 (Tex.Civ.App.--Waco, 1949, writ dism'd). Our case is obviously much stronger for the defendant than the case just cited. There is not any probative evidence that the truck was not moving in the process of making its turn out of the intersection. We, therefore, hold that the evidence did not bring the case within Exception 9.

Exception 9a requires that a plaintiff in order to sustain venue in a county other than that of defendant's residence, Must establish by a preponderance of the evidence ³ the three requirements listed under said exception. ⁴

Our Supreme Court has established a distinction between prima facie proof and proof in the ordinary manner, or, as stated in Compton v. Elliott, supra, '* * * that the defendant is to be permitted by his evidence to dispute and contradict plaintiff's evidence.' The Court in the case just cited, an Exception 9 case, said:

'His position is that, while he had the burden of proving the venue fact or facts, he was not required to prove them in the ordinary manner, but merely to introduce enough evidence to prove them prima facie, * * *

'This contention we cannot sustain, although it is supported by decisions of some of the Courts of Civil Appeals. * * * plaintiff must prove the facts in the usual way, which means that the defendant is to be permitted by his evidence to dispute and contradict plaintiff's evidence.

'* * * the truth (of the fact or) facts in issue is ascertained by the introduction and weighing of evidence offered by both parties.'

The above quoted rules are re-affirmed by the Supreme Court in Banks v. Collins, supra, another Exception 9 case. In those two cases the pleas of privilege were sustained by the trial court, whereas in ours it was denied.

A plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence one or more of the grounds of venue alleged in his controverting affidavit in an Exception 9 case. Compton v. Elliott, supra, and Banks v. Collins, supra. A fortiori he would surely be required to do so in an Exception 9a case which statutorily requires such proof. Ours is clearly a 9a case for the reasons heretofore stated.

Defendant offered no witness of his own but on cross examination when the investigating officer was asked: 'Now, based upon the damage and the other physical facts that you found at the scene, you estimated the speed of the truck at the time of the impact to be somewhere between 5 and 10 miles an hour, didn't you?' he answered: 'Right, yes, sir.' To the same type question which asked him if he estimated the speed of the automobile at 50 or 55 miles an hour, he answered: 'Yes, sir. It was nothing that we could measure or base out opinion on. We just determined that from the damage. We have no physical evidence to base our opinion on.' The witness then testified affirmatively to a question which asked him if that meant the automobile was traveling in the neighborhood of five times as fast as the truck.

The only fair interpretation that could be made of such answers is that the witness had no skid marks to measure as physical evidence to show the speed of the vehicles at the time of the collision. Though the physical condition of the vehicles is obviously physical evidence, the witness apparently was not so interpreting his testimony.

Other physical facts testified to by Sgt. Granger were that Mrs. White's '* * * head was pretty well mashed up and her left arm was almost severed just above the elbow here, and she was mashed down in the right front'; that she was dead upon arrival by the officer; that the front lights of the car were crushed by the impact; the tail lights were not on and that he never found anything in his investigation to indicate the head lights were on at the time of impact; that the lights on the truck, front, side and rear were burning; that the cab had already made its turn toward the east at the time of impact and was in a southeasterly direction with the car '* * * somewhere back over his right shoulder'; that the truck had traveled about 82 feet from the stop sign where it entered before the impact occurred.

Appellees by brief contend the testimony of Sgt. Granger with respect to speed and distances was hearsay, the trial court correctly disregarded it as incompetent and there was other competent evidence to sustain at least one of the acts of negligence alleged, which was a proximate cause of the collision.

A peace officer's opinion testimony has no probative value on speed, when based alone on damage resulting from a collision, in the absence of skid marks and a showing of qualifications as an expert to determine speed. Missouri Pacific Railroad Company v. Rose, 380 S.W.2d 41 (Tex.Civ.App.--Houston, 1964, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Union Bus Lines v. Moulder, 180 S.W.2d 509 (Tex.Civ.App.--San Antonio, 1944, n.w.h.). Since that showing was not made the officer's opinion as to speed and the distances separating the vehicles at the time the truck entered the intersection was not admissible.

The Supreme Court of Texas in answering 'certified question No. 1' in Banks v. Collins, supr...