Southern Ry. Co. v. Butts
| Decision Date | 04 June 1964 |
| Citation | 379 S.W.2d 794,214 Tenn. 328,18 McCanless 328 |
| Parties | SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, Plaintiff in Error, v. Jack BUTTS, Defendant in Error. 18 McCanless 328, 214 Tenn. 328, 379 S.W.2d 794 |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Key & Lee, Knoxville, for plaintiff in error.
John P. Davis, Jr., Hodges, Doughty & Carson, Joseph B. Yancey, Warren Butler, Yancey & Butler, Knoxville, for defendant in error.
We have granted certiorari to review the action of the Court of Appeals in remanding this case for a new trial instead of dismissing the same as contended for by the plaintiff in error.
The principal question involved before that court was whether the doctrine of imputed negligence applies to bar the action of the defendant in error for the negligence of his wife in driving his station wagon in which he was riding upon defendant's tracks where it was struck by one of its trains.
On the date of the accident at the end of her day of employment, Mrs. Butts drove her husband's station wagon to their home for the purpose of starting the evening meal. After doing this she and her two sons, aged four and eight, went in the station wagon to the place of employment of Mr. Butts to pick him up and take him home. Mrs. Butts continued to drive on the return trip home with Mr. Butts riding on the front seat beside her and the two sons in the rear of the station wagon. All of them were injured when their station wagon was struck by a freight train belonging to the defendant at the crossing of the railroad tracks over Morrell Road in Knox County.
The Court of Appeals held that the trial court was in error in failing to charge the special request submitted by the defendant Railroad Company, to-wit:
'I further charge you that since Mr. Butts owned and was present in the station wagon being driven by his wife, any negligence on the part of Mrs. Butts was imputable in law to Mr. Butts, and if such negligence on the part of Mrs. Butts was a proximate cause, or one of the proximate causes of the accident, neither Mr. nor Mrs. Butts can recover in these cases.'
We agree with the Court of Appeals that this special request sets forth the correct statement of the rule in effect in this State. It is well settled that the owner of a car, riding in it, the driver being under his control, cannot recover damages from a third person on account of an accident when the owner's driver is guilty of proximate contributory negligence. Snyder, et al. v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 183 Tenn. 471, 192 S.W.2d 1008 (1946); Ringwald v. Beene, 170 Tenn. 116, 124, 92 S.W.2d 411 (1946); and Angel v. McClean, 173 Tenn. 191, 116 S.W.2d 1005 (1938).
The Court of Appeals held that a new trial should have been granted in this case by the trial court for the reason that the verdicts against Mrs. Butts and for Mr. Butts were contradictory and irreconcilable. For the reasons stated herein, we agree with such holding. The Court of Appeals said:
This reasoning of the court seems to be perfectly logical and sound and consistent with the law of this State.
The jury, trying together the four cases, consolidated by consent, of Mr. and Mrs. Butts and their two children, found that Mrs. Butts was not entitled to recover and dismissed her case. However, the jury found in favor of Mr. Butts in the sum of $2,000.00 and found in favor of each child in the amount of $1,500.00. The railroad did not appeal in the children's cases, and Mrs. Butts did not appeal the dismissal of her case. The only appeal was by the railroad in the case where Mr. Butts recovered against it.
The undisputed proof shows that Mrs. Butts was injured more seriously than any of the other occupants of the car. The jury found against her and under the proof submitted it must be assumed that this was on the basis that she was guilty of proximate contributory negligence. However, the same jury also returned a verdict in favor of Mr. Butts even though it was his car being used on his business and the driver was his wife. While either one of these verdicts standing alone without the other would be valid, when rendered at the same time by the same jury they are contradictory and irreconcilable.
Even though the trial court charged the jury that the presumption (that Mr. Butts as owner was in control of Mrs. Butts, as driver), was rebuttable, there was no evidence or proof in the record to rebut it. As the Court of Appeals put it----
'* * * in the absence of proof rebutting the presumption of control by Mr....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cole v. Woods
...have relied, unquestioningly, upon "the well-settled" rule established by these three early cases. See, e. g., Southern Ry. Co. v. Butts, 214 Tenn. 328, 379 S.W.2d 794 (1964). Also applying the "imputed contributory negligence" rule are several decisions by the Court of Appeals. For example......
-
Lovell v. Sonitrol of Chattanooga, Inc.
...doubt will ever be the case), to order a mistrial, otherwise this Court must reverse." 405 S.W.2d at 477. See also Southern Ry. v. Butts, 214 Tenn. 328, 379 S.W.2d 794 (1964); Alabama Highway Express, Inc. v. Luster, 51 Tenn.App. 691, 371 S.W.2d 182 It follows insofar as this issue is conce......
-
Johnson v. King
...East Tennessee Natural Gas Co. v. Peltz, 38 Tenn.App. 100, 270 S.W.2d 591 (1954).' After commenting on Southern Railway Co. v. Butts, 214 Tenn. 328, 333, 379 S.W.2d 794 (1964) the Court held the unappealed verdict and judgment in favor of Phillips was res judicata of the Forsythe We agree w......
-
Slaten v. Earl Campbell Clinic Hospital
...doubt will ever be the case), to order a mistrial, otherwise this Court must reverse." 405 S.W.2d at 477. See also Southern Ry. v. Butts, 214 Tenn. 328, 379 S.W.2d 794 (1964); Alabama Highway Express, Inc. v. Luster, 51 Tenn.App. 691, 371 S.W.2d 182 In both the case of Southern Ry. v. Butts......