Rosas v. Shafer, B--143
| Decision Date | 24 May 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. B--143,B--143 |
| Citation | 415 S.W.2d 889 |
| Parties | Faustino C. ROSAS et al., Petitioners, v. Dorthy SHAFER and Kathleen Franklin, Administratrices of the Estates of Martin Luther Bunn and Fannie Elizabeth Bunn, Respondents. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Jack M. Glover, Galveston, for petitioners.
Groce, Hebdon, Fahey & Smith, Edward P. Fahey, San Antonio, Allison & Wallace, Kerrville, for respondents.
Plaintiffs used for personal injuries arising out of a head-on collision. Judgment was for the defendants by reason of jury findings that (1) the defendant driver was not negligent in the manner in which he drove his car, (2) the plaintiff, Gilbert Rosas, was negligent in the manner in which he drove, and (3) plaintiffs, Gilbert and Evangalene Rosas, were on a joint enterprise at the time of the collision. Plaintiffs urged in the court of civil appeals that the findings had no support in the evidence. The intermediate court affirmed the judgment because the plaintiffs failed to preserve their points either by motion for instructed verdict, objections to the issues, or motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Plaintiffs did, however, file a motion for new trial and distinctly complained that each of the findings had no support in the evidence. Since plaintiffs' contentions were made clear to the court in time for the court to correct any error, if any existed, there was a predicate for the 'no evidence' points on appeal. City of Austin v. Daniels, 160 Tex. 628, 335 S.W.2d 753, 758--759, 81 A.L.R.2d 1180 (1960). The judgment of the court of civil appeals is correct, however, since there was evidence in the record which absolved the defendant driver of negligence.
The application for writ of error is refused, no reversible error. Rule 483, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Arkoma Basin Expl. v. Fmf Associates 1990-a
...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. 1967). 21. See Biggers v. Cont'l Bus Sys., Inc., 157 Tex. 351, 303 S.W.2d 359, 368 22. See, e.g., 10 WILLIAM V. DORSANEO III, ......
-
Cleaver v. Dresser Industries, 1156
...trial court to correct any error, if any existed, there is a sufficient predicate for the "no evidence" points on appeal. Rosas v. Shafer, 415 S.W.2d 889 (Tex.Sup.1967). A "no evidence" point may be asserted for the first time by a motion for new trial. Rosas v. Shafer, supra; Ambox, Inc. v......
-
Bluebonnet Exp., Inc. v. Employers Ins. of Wausau, B14-82-128CV
...of which is to point out clearly the contentions complained of to the trial court in time for it to correct any error. Rosas v. Shafer, 415 S.W.2d 889 (Tex.1967). The basis for this rule is that fundamental error in civil cases survives today only in those rare instances in which the record......
-
Sinegaure v. Bally Total Fitness Corporation, No. 01-05-01070-CV (Tex. App. 12/18/2008)
...804 S.W.2d 509, 510-11 (Tex. 1991); Aero Energy, Inc. v. Circle C Drilling Co., 699 S.W.2d 821, 822 (Tex. 1985); Rosas v. Shafer, 415 S.W.2d 889, 889-90 (Tex. 1967); see also Tex. R. Civ. P. 324(b)(2). Sinegaure filed only a motion for new Sinegaure's motion challenged the jury's findings o......