Tarry Warehouse & Storage Co. v. Duvall
Decision Date | 13 April 1938 |
Docket Number | No. 7155.,7155. |
Citation | 115 S.W.2d 401 |
Parties | TARRY WAREHOUSE & STORAGE CO. v. DUVALL. |
Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Lightfoot & Robertson and Nelson Scurlock, all of Fort Worth, for plaintiff in error.
Julien C. Hyer and A. W. Christian, both of Fort Worth, for defendant in error.
T. F. Duvall sued the Tarry Warehouse & Storage Company for damages resulting from a collision between a trailer of defendant's truck and a trailer of plaintiff's truck. The collision occurred at a point on state highway No. 2, outside any town or city, about twelve miles north of the city of Fort Worth. The case was submitted to the jury on special issues, and based upon the answers of the jury to such special issues the trial court entered judgment for plaintiff in the sum of $10,270.75. The Tarry Warehouse & Storage Company appealed the case to the Court of Civil Appeals at Fort Worth, and the judgment of the trial court was affirmed. 94 S.W.2d 1249. A writ of error was granted on the application of the Tarry Warehouse & Storage Company.
In order to be brief, we will refer to T. F. Duvall as Duvall, and to the Tarry Warehouse & Storage Company as the Warehouse Company.
The Warehouse Company in substance contends that the trial court erred in overruling its motion for an instructed verdict for the following reasons:
(1) Since the undisputed evidence shows that Duvall, in violation of article 827a, § 10, Vernon's Ann.P.C., parked his truck, with a trailer attached thereto, so that the left rear wheel of the trailer extended approximately 12 or 15 inches upon the pavement, and the bed of the trailer extended about 6 inches over the wheel, and the trailer was left standing in this position so that the right front corner of the trailer attached to the Warehouse Company's truck, which was being driven on the right-hand side of the pavement, collided with the left rear corner of the trailer attached to Duvall's truck, it appears that the accident and injury would not have occurred if Duvall had observed the provisions of article 827a, § 10.
(2) Since it appears that it was negligence on the part of Duvall to leave his truck standing with the trailer attached thereto extending partially upon the pavement of the highway, at a place where vehicles were passing and might collide with his vehicle, and that such negligence was a continuous act, and occurred at the very instant the collision happened, it must be held that the negligence of Duvall was at least a contributing or concurring cause, co-operating with the negligence on the part of the driver of the Warehouse Company's truck, in producing the injuries complained of by Duvall.
We quote from the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals, 94 S.W.2d 1249, 1250, the following statement:
The Court of Civil Appeals further sums up the findings of the jury in the following language: "The jury found that immediately prior to the injury defendant's truck driver, Pitts, was driving the truck at a speed of 25 miles per hour, and in so doing he was guilty of negligence, which was a proximate cause of the accident; immediately prior to the collision defendant's truck driver failed to keep a proper lookout ahead for plaintiff's truck, and in so doing was guilty of negligence, which was a proximate cause of the collision; just prior to the collision defendant's truck driver was blinded by the lights of an approaching vehicle, and, after he became so blinded, he continued to drive defendant's truck at the same rate of speed at which he was driving immediately before he became blinded, and in so doing was guilty of negligence, which was a proximate cause of the collision; just prior to the collision plaintiff parked his truck and trailer as near to the ditch on the right-hand side of the road as same could be parked, without driving it into the ditch on such right-hand side; he had a tail-light burning on his truck at the time of the collision and a reflector attached to the rear end of his truck on the left side of same."
The Warehouse Company invokes section 10 of article 827a, Vernon's Ann.P.C., as a complete defense to Duvall's claim for damages.
In article 801 of the Penal Code is found the following language:
Section 10, of article 827a, in part reads: "No person shall park or leave standing any vehicle, whether attended or unattended, upon the paved or improved or main traveled portion of any highway, outside of any incorporated town or city, when it is possible to park or leave such vehicle standing off of the paved or improved or main traveled portion of such highway; provided, in no event shall any person park or leave standing any vehicle, whether attended or unattended, upon any highway unless a clear and unobstructed width of not less...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Reinhart v. Young
...Motor Coaches, Inc. v. Palmer, 132 Tex. 77, 121 S.W.2d 323, 323-324 (1938) (new and independent cause); Tarry Warehouse & Storage Co. v. Duvall, 131 Tex. 466, 115 S.W.2d 401, 405 (1938) (new and independent cause); Young v. Massey, 128 Tex. 638, 101 S.W.2d 809, 810 (1937) (new and independe......
-
Humble Sand & Gravel v. Gomez, 06-00-00017-CV
...testimony has raised the issue of new and independent cause, the trial court should define the issue. Tarry Warehouse & Storage Co. v. Duvall, 131 Tex. 466, 115 S.W.2d 401, 405 (1938). It is reversible error if the trial court failed to define new and independent cause in its definition of ......
-
Wooley v. Lucksinger
...cause (see PJC 2.4) if there is evidence that the occurrence was caused by a new and independent cause. See Tarry Warehouse & Storage Co. v. Duvall, 115 S.W.2d 401, 405 (Tex.1938); Phoenix Refining Co. v. Tips, 81 S.W.2d 60, 61 (Tex.1935). Submission if there is no such evidence is improper......
-
Boddy v. Canteau, 14747
...Orange & N.W.R. Co. v. Harris, 127 Tex. 13, 89 S.W.2d 973; Young v. Massey, 128 Tex. 638, 101 S.W.2d 809; and Tarry Warehouse & Storage Co. v. Duvall, 131 Tex. 466, 115 S.W.2d 401. All of such cases are prior in date to Dallas Railway & Terminal Co. v. Bailey, All of those cases lend suppor......