Strauss v. LaMark
| Decision Date | 13 March 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. A-9311,A-9311 |
| Citation | 366 S.W.2d 555 |
| Parties | Helen S. STRAUSS, Petitioner, v. Lewis LaMARK et al., Respondents. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Milton Schwartz, Mabel Grey Howell, Houston, for petitioner.
Butler, Binion, Rice & Cook, Clyde Bracken, Jr., and John L. McConn, Jr., Houston, for respondents.
Helen S. Strauss, petitioner, brought this suit against Lewis LaMark, et al., respondents, to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained when petitioner tripped on an electrical cord in the aisle of a beauty shop owned and operated by respondents. Special Issue No. 1, which inquired whether the cord extended into the aisle, was answered by the jury in the negative. The next five issues were conditioned on an affirmative answer to Special Issue No. 1 and were not answered. These issues inquired whether petitioner tripped and fell on the cord, whether the cord had extended into the aisle for such length of time that respondents knew or in the exercise of ordinary care should have known of it, whether respondents were guilty of negligence which was a proximate cause of the accident, and whether the cord was open and obvious. In response to Special Issues Nos. 7 and 9, the jury found that petitioner did not fail to keep a proper lookout and that her fall was the result of an unavoidable accident. The trial court rendered judgment on the verdict that petitioner take nothing. Petitioner perfected her appeal, and the Court of Civil Appeals held: (1) that the jury's answer to Special Issue No. 1 is contrary to the great weight and preponderance of the evidence, and (2) that the issue of unavoidable accident is not raised by the evidence. On the basis of these conclusions, it entered a decree reversing the judgment of the district court and remanding the cause for a new trial. Respondents then filed a motion for rehearing in which they insisted that petitioner, by failing to object to the conditional submission of Special Issues Nos. 2 to 6, inclusive, had waived her right to have such issues answered by the jury and that the same must now be deemed to have been found by the trial court in such manner as to support its judgment. The Court of Civil Appeals sustained this contention, granted the motion for rehearing, and affirmed the judgment of the trial court. Tex.Civ.App., 360 S.W.2d 583.
We agree with the Court of Civil Appeals that the issue of unavoidable accident is not raised by the evidence. The only remaining question to be decided then is the one considered by the intermediate court on rehearing. Under the provisions of Rule 279, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, an independent ground of recovery or defense not conclusively established by the evidence is waived if no issue thereon is given or requested. When some but not all of a cluster of issues necessary to sustain an independent ground of recovery or defense are given and answered by the jury without objection or request, the trial court may make written findings on omitted issues raised by the evidence. If no written findings are madeThe omitted issues are deemed to have been found by the court in such manner as to support the judgment.
The presumed finding provisions of the Rule apply when an answer to a controlling issue is prevented by improper conditional submission without objection or request by the party who is entitled to and should insist upon a jury finding thereon. In Little Rock Furniture Mfg. Co. v. Dunn, 148 Tex. 197, 222 S.W.2d 985, the jury found in response to Special Issues Nos. 15 and 16 that the plaintiff failed to keep a proper lookout but that such failure was not negligence. Under the definition of 'proper lookout' given as part of the charge, the answer to Special Issue No. 15 amounted to a finding that the plaintiff was negligent. The causation issue, which was conditioned on an affirmative answer to Special Issue No. 16, was not answered. Judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff, and the defendant contended on appeal that its motion to declare a mistrial should have been granted because of the irreconcilable conflict between the answers to Special Issues Nos. 15 and 16. Our opinion points out that the burden was on the defendant to establish its defense of contributory negligence and obtain jury findings thereon, and that it could have insisted that the jurors be permitted to answer the causation issue in the event they found that the plaintiff failed to keep a proper lookout. Since no objection was made to the conditional submission, it was held that the defendant had waived its right to a jury finding on proximate cause and that the unanswered issue would be deemed as found by the trial court in such manner as to support the judgment.
Respondent also cites Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Simpson, Tex.Civ.App....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United Scaffolding, Inc. v. Levine
... ... Frito-Lay, Inc. , 784 S.W.2d 667, 668 (Tex. 1990) (citing TEX. R. CIV. P. 279 ; Strauss v. LaMark , 366 S.W.2d 555, 557 (Tex. 1963) ); see also Olivo , 952 S.W.2d at 52930 (instructing that "a simple negligence question, ... ...
-
State Farm Life Ins. Co. v. Beaston
... ... Wilgus v. Bond, 730 S.W.2d 670, 672 (Tex.1987); Matthews v. Candlewood Builders, Inc., 685 S.W.2d 649, 650 (Tex.1985); Strauss v. LaMark, 366 S.W.2d 555, 557 (Tex.1963); AAA Air Conditioning & Mfg. Corp. of Tex. v. Barr, 186 S.W.2d 825, 826-27 (Tex.Civ.App.--Dallas 1945, ... ...
-
Marriage of Moore, Matter of
... ... Strauss v. LaMark, 366 S.W.2d 555, 558 (Tex.1963); Imperial Insurance Co. v. Ellington, 498 S.W.2d 368, 375 (Tex.Civ.App.--San Antonio 1973, no writ) ... ...
-
Christopher v. General Computer Systems, Inc.
... ... Tex.R.Civ.P. 279; Strauss v. LaMark, 366 S.W.2d 555, 558 (Tex.1963). Appellant argues that there is no mention of a "conspiracy" in the statement of facts other than the ... ...