Southern Iron & Machine Co. v. Portugal, 8874.
| Decision Date | 19 October 1932 |
| Docket Number | No. 8874.,8874. |
| Citation | 53 S.W.2d 685 |
| Parties | SOUTHERN IRON & MACHINE CO. v. PORTUGAL et al. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Cameron County; A. M. Kent, Judge.
Action by Jesusa Villareal de Portugal and others against the Southern Iron & Machine Company. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
King, Wood & Morrow, of Houston, and Abney & Whitelaw, of Brownsville, for appellant.
Seabury, George & Taylor, of Brownsville, for appellees.
Catarino Portugal was killed as a result of a collision between an automobile in which he and others were riding as passengers and an automobile belonging to appellant, Southern Iron & Machine Company, and driven by its agent.
At the time of the accident, Portugal was riding on the left running board of the car. The collision occurred on a curve of a paved highway in Cameron county. In faithful adherence to an apparently universal custom, each driver testified that at the time of the collision his car was on the right half of the roadway, and the other's on the wrong half. It is apparent from the record, and easily conceivable, that both vehicles were whirling recklessly around the curve, at an admitted speed of twenty-five or more miles per hour.
Appellant's car side-swiped the left side of the other, crushing Portugal, perched on the running board. It does not require much stretch of the imagination to discern a significant relation between the facts that none of the travelers was injured except Portugal, and that he was riding on the running board at the point of impact.
Portugal's widow and children recovered damages on account of his alleged wrongful death, and the corporate defendant has appealed.
In its answer appellant pleaded the contributory negligence of the deceased by simply alleging that he "was himself guilty of negligence at the time and place of the accident alleged by the plaintiffs in their petition." The trial court submitted the issue of contributory negligence in equally general terms by asking the jury to find if either the deceased or his driver-host was "guilty of any negligent act or omission which, concurring or co-operating with the negligence, if any, of" the driver of appellant's car "proximately caused or contributed to cause the death of said Portugal." The evidence included testimony of specific acts of contributory negligence upon the part of deceased, such as his act of riding on the running board of the truck. In this situation appellant objected to the submission of the question of contributory negligence in the one general issue, and complains because of the refusal of its requested special issues submitting the specific acts developed by the evidence. We are obliged to sustain the complaint, embraced in appellant's first proposition.
It now appears to be well settled in this state that "a general plea of contributory negligence, not excepted to," as in this case "is undoubtedly sufficient to warrant its submission generally or in any and all forms in which the issue is made by the evidence." Stewart v. Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. (Tex. Civ. App.) 78 S. W. 979 (writ denied); Lanning v. Yarbrough (Tex. Civ. App.) 35 S.W.(2d) 211, and authorities there cited.
It is equally well settled that it is the duty of a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Agnew v. Coleman County Elec. Co-op.
...Appeals on original submission held no error, but on rehearing changed the opinion so as to hold error; Southern Iron & Machine Co. v. Portugal, Tex.Civ.App.1932, 53 S.W.2d 685, no writ history; Spears Dairy, Inc., v. Bohrer, Tex.Civ.App.1932, 54 S.W.2d 872, writ dismissed; English v. Black......
-
English v. Blackwood
...370, 78 S. W. 979; 41 Tex.Jur., sec. 221, p. 1014; Spears Dairy v. Bohrer, Tex. Civ.App., 54 S.W.2d 872; Southern Iron & Machine Co. v. Portugal, Tex.Civ.App., 53 S.W.2d 685; 30 Tex.Jur., sec. 160, p. It is further held in the case of France et ux. v. Graves, Tex.Civ.App., 48 S.W.2d 438, th......
-
Kainer v. Walker
...specific issues. Agnew v. Coleman County Electric Cooperative, 153 Tex. 587, 272 S.W.2d 877. See also Southern Iron & Machine Co. v. Portugal, Tex.Civ.App., 53 S.W.2d 685. When a person who has alleged negligence in only general terms may thus demand a specific submission, we are at a loss ......
-
Blythe County Line Independent School Dist. v. Garrett
...is reversible error. Panhandle & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Miller, Tex.Civ.App., 44 S.W.2d 790 and the cases cited; Southern Iron & Machine Co. v. Portugal, Tex.Civ.App., 53 S.W.2d 685; Texas & N. O. Ry. Co. v. Barham, Tex.Civ.App., 204 S.W.2d 205; and Wooten v. Crosby County, Tex.Civ.App., 219 S.W.......