Sproles Motor Freight Lines v. Long

• Decision Date: 03 February 1943
• Docket Number: No. 7997.,7997.
• Citation: 168 S.W.2d 642
• Parties: SPROLES MOTOR FREIGHT LINES, Inc., et al. v. LONG.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

168 S.W.2d 642

SPROLES MOTOR FREIGHT LINES, Inc., et al. v. LONG.

No. 7997.

Supreme Court of Texas.

February 3, 1943.

Rehearing Denied March 3, 1943.

Error from Court of Civil Appeals of Ninth Supreme Judicial District; Few Brewster, Judge, Specially Presiding.

Action by Georgia Long, by and through her father as next friend, against Sproles Motor Freight Lines and another for injuries suffered in automobile accident. A judgment on a verdict for plaintiff was affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals, and defendants bring error.

Judgments of Court of Civil Appeals and of district court reversed, and cause remanded for new trial.

Pitts & Liles, of Conroe, and Hill & Paddock, of Fort Worth, for plaintiffs in error.

W. C. McClain, A. A. Turner, and O. Etheridge, all of Conroe, for defendant in error.

CRITZ, Justice.

This suit was filed in the District Court of Montgomery County, Texas, by Georgia Long, a minor, suing by and through her father, as her next friend, against Sproles Motor Freight Lines, a corporation, hereinafter called Sproles, and Roy Rogers, to recover damages resulting from personal injuries alleged to have been received by Georgia Long, as a result of certain negligent acts of defendants. Trial in the district court resulted in a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $9,000. This judgment was affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals. As authorized by Rule 452, the Court of Civil Appeals ordered that its opinion be not published.

It appears that Miss Long, a minor, was seriously injured in Montgomery County, Texas, when an automobile in which she was riding collided with the rear end of a truck owned by Sproles and operated by Rogers as its servant and employee. It appears that Rogers, the driver, stopped the truck in the nighttime on a paved portion of the highway along which it was traveling. While the truck was so stopped the car in which Miss Long was riding, but which she was not driving, was propelled into and collided with the rear end of the truck. The car in which Miss Long was riding was traveling along the right-hand side of the paved highway in the direction in which the truck was headed. The truck was stopped on the right side of the highway and on the paved portion thereof. The jury convicted the defendants of negligence in allowing the truck to stand upon the paved portion of the highway on the occasion of this accident. The jury also found proximate cause and damages in the sum of $9,000. The jury found against the defendants on all defensive issues submitted by the court. We will not detail the evidence. It is sufficient to say that it was conflicting on both offensive and defensive issues. The damages were, in their very nature, unliquidated.

In their motion for a new trial defendants charged that the jury was guilty of misconduct in certain particulars while deliberating on its verdict. The trial court heard evidence on the motion, and at the close of the evidence thereon overruled it. At the request of the defendants, the trial court filed conclusions of fact and law as follows:

"1. That the question of doctor bills and hospital bills incurred in behalf of Georgia Long before she reaches the age of twenty-one years was mentioned, but was not considered by the jury in arriving at its verdict.

"2. That the question of attorneys' fees was mentioned in the jury room, but the same was promptly stopped by the foreman, who admonished the jury that same could not be considered, and following which no further reference was made thereto and no discussion had, and neither was same considered by the jury in arriving at its verdict.

"3. That the question of insurance was mentioned but same was not discussed nor considered by the jury in arriving at its verdict and the amount of damages assessed.

"Conclusions of Law.

"I further find and conclude as a matter of law, from the testimony given by the twelve jurors who sat in the case that an affirmative showing was made that the mere mention of attorneys' fees, insurance, and doctor bills and hospital bills incurred in behalf of the said Georgia Long before she becomes twenty-one years of age was not harmful nor prejudicial to the defendants' rights."

An examination of the above fact findings will disclose that the trial court expressly found jury misconduct in three instances or particulars. In this regard the trial court found, in effect, that the jury was guilty of misconduct in that the members thereof mentioned: (a) Doctor bills and hospital bills incurred on behalf of Miss Long before she reaches the age of twenty-one years; (b) the question of attorneys' fees to be paid out of this recovery; and (c) the question of insurance.

We have read the entire statement of facts touching the matter of misconduct of the jury, and it amply supports the fact findings of the trial court. Simply stated, the fact findings of the trial court, considered in the light of the testimony heard on the question of...