Siratt v. Worth Const. Co.
| Decision Date | 15 December 1954 |
| Docket Number | No. A-4531,A-4531 |
| Citation | 154 Tex. 84,273 S.W.2d 615 |
| Parties | Iia SIRATT, Petitioner. v. WORTH CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Respondent. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Calloway Huffaker and Harold Green, Tahoka, for petitioner.
M. Hendricks Brown and Chas. J. Murray, Fort Worth, for respondent.
This is a companion case to that of Driver v. Worth Construction Company, Tex., 273 S.W.2d 603. Petitioner herein was riding with Boyd Driver on the occasion of the accident resulting from the driving of the Driver car into an excavation left by respondent in Ohio Garden Road where it crossed the new concrete roadway being constructed by respondent. The Driver case and this cause were consolidated in the trial court, and submitted to the jury by one charge. The respondent made its motion for judgment upon the jury's verdict, which was granted. Upon appeal to the Court of Civil Appeals, the trial court's judgment was reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial. 263 S.W.2d 842.
In answer to Special Issue No. 77, the jury found that Driver and Siratt were upon a joint expedition at the time of the happening in question.
We agree with the holding of the Court of Civil Appeals that the jury finding that Siratt and Boyd Driver were engaged in a joint expedition is not supported by the evidence. Also, we agree that reversible error is not shown by the failure of the trial court to grant a mistrial when Siratt gave testimony as to what a party at the Veterans Hospital said about always asking the insurance company to pay for the hospital bill, etc.
We think the Court of Civil Appeals was in error in its holding that the jury's finding that respondent was negligent in failing to have a barricade on the new roadway at the Ohio Garden Road intersection, and that such negligence was a proximate cause of petitioner's injuries, conflicted with the jury findings that respondent did not fail to give adequate warning that road was not open to the traveling public, and to require a reversal of the cause.
In the Driver case we have discussed the authorities which authorize our holding therein, that since this roadway was not open to travel by the public, the respondent could only be liable to those who were injured in traveling on such new roadway in the event respondent failed to have adequate barricades, signs, etc. to warn the traveling public that such roadway was not open to the public for travel. The jury found, in the trial of the consolidated cases, that the respondent did not fail to have such adequate warning signs, barricades, etc. This being true, petitioner herein-the same as petitioner in the Driver case-could only recover against respondent for injury inflicted wantonly, wilfully, or through gross negligence. Carlisle v. J. Weingarten, Inc., 137 Tex. 220, 152 S.W.2d 1073. Their recovery is not denied because of any contributory negligence of either or both, but because, under the jury's answers to Special Issues Nos. 1, 4, 8 and 11, respondent has violated no duty owed to either of them.
For the reasons stated in the Driver opinion, the jury's findings in answer to Special Issues Nos. 14 and 15 that contractor was negligent in failing to place a proper barricade across the Ohio Garden Street intersection with the new concrete slab, and which negligence was a proximate cause of Siratt's injuries, are immaterial and cannot be the basis for any liability of respondent. The respondent made proper objections below to the submission of these issues.
By their findings to Special Issues Nos. 14 and 15, the jury convicted respondent only of simple negligence, i. e., a failure to use...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United Statesa Tex. Lloyds Co. v. Menchaca
...of the jury there is no basis for a judgment. Such conflict cannot be waived by the parties."), rev'd on other grounds , 154 Tex. 84, 273 S.W.2d 615 (1954) ; Sevine v. Heissner , 262 S.W.2d 218, 222 (Tex. Civ. App.—Austin 1953, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (stating a fatal conflict is a "matter of fu......
-
Wanda Petroleum Co. v. Hahn
...have done. Siratt v. Worth Construction Co., 263 S.W.2d 842 (Tex.Civ.App., Fort Worth 1953), reversed on other grounds in 154 Tex. 84, 273 S.W.2d 615 (Tex.Sup.1954). Analysis of the cases relied on by the parties herein as well as others, particularly those cited in Fuller v. Flanagan, supr......
-
Freeman v. Commercial Union Assur. Co.
...in Little Rock Furniture Mfg. Co. v. Dunn, supra, and other cases which follow said case, such as the cases of Siratt v. Worth Construction Co., 154 Tex. 84, 273 S.W.2d 615; Nelson v. Dallas Railway & Terminal Co., Tex.Civ.App., 302 S.W.2d 436, wr. ref., n. r. e., and Nichols v. Red Arrow F......
-
Driver v. Worth Const. Co.
... ... Worth vicinity, begins in the western part of town at Camp Bowie Boulevard and runs generally north and east, crossing the Jacksboro Highway (No. 199), thence easterly via the stockyards district and on to Dallas, Texas. On the night of May 13, 1952, Boyd Driver and Ira Siratt were employees of a Mr. Tucker who operated Tucker's Bar & Grill in downtown Ft. Worth. About 1 a. m., after Tucker had closed his cafe, Driver took Mr. and Mrs. Tucker to the home in west or northwest Ft. Worth. Siratt went along for the ride, and (after taking the Tuckers home) Driver was to ... ...