Texas Co. v. Ingram
Decision Date | 11 March 1933 |
Citation | 64 S.W.2d 208 |
Parties | TEXAS CO. et al. v. INGRAM. |
Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Roberts & Roberts and William Green, all of Nashville, for plaintiffs in error.
Walter S. Faulkner, of Lebanon, and C. L. Cummings, of Murfreesboro, for defendant in error.
The three plaintiffs in error, viz., the Texas Company, James L. Roberts, and W. L. Foutch (hereinafter called defendants), have appealed in error to this court from a judgment of the circuit court of Rutherford county for $5,000 and costs against them and in favor of the defendant in error, Mrs. Kate Jones Ingram (hereinafter called plaintiff).
The judgment thus brought up for review was rendered upon the verdict of a jury in an action brought on January 1, 1931, by the plaintiff, Mrs. Ingram, to recover damages for personal injuries suffered by her on January 24, 1930, in a collision between two automobiles, one of which was driven by the plaintiff and the other by defendant W. L. Foutch.
The fact that there was a collision between two cars driven by the plaintiff and the defendant Foutch, respectively, at the time and place stated in the plaintiff's declaration, and that the plaintiff was injured as a result of the collision, is not now denied by the defendants; but the character and extent of plaintiff's injuries and the liability of the defendants therefor are matters of serious controversy.
The collision occurred on a highway bridge which spanned Stone's river near the village of Walter Hill on the highway connecting the towns of Murfreesboro and Lebanon. Plaintiff lived in Wilson county, and was on her way to Murfreesboro in Rutherford county, where her mother resided. She was driving an "old model" Ford car, and was accompanied by her infant son, Wade Hill Ingram, about four years of age. Defendant Foutch was driving a Chevrolet roadster, which had a small "slip-on" truck body attached, and was traveling from Murfreesboro towards Lebanon. He was alone, and the truck he was driving was not loaded.
The bridge is described in the record as a "one-way bridge," as it was too narrow to permit the passage of more than one automobile at the same time, and the ends of the bridge are distinguished by referring to one as the Murfreesboro end and to the other as the Lebanon end, meaning, of course, the ends nearest Murfreesboro and Lebanon, respectively.
The bridge was 300 feet long, and the two cars collided at a point 46 feet from the Murfreesboro end of the bridge.
As defendant Foutch followed the highway approaching the bridge, he descended a hill for a distance of probably 100 yards, with the bridge and any automobiles thereon within the range of his vision, and then, after traversing a sag below the level of the bridge for a short distance, turned to his left, almost at an angle of ninety degrees, onto the bridge.
According to the testimony of defendant Foutch, the plaintiff, Mrs. Ingram, with ample time and opportunity to stop her car, drove it against the car of defendant Foutch after the latter had stopped, and the plaintiff's own negligence was the proximate cause of her injuries; but we need not dwell on the testimony of defendant Foutch with respect to the manner in which the collision occurred, for he is contradicted by the testimony of Mrs. Ingram and her witness Morgan Green, and, as the verdict implies that the jury accepted the testimony most favorable to the plaintiff, we must, under well-settled rules, likewise accept it as the truth of the case, and discard all countervailing evidence.
With reference to the circumstances immediately attending the collision, the plaintiff, Mrs. Ingram, testified as follows:
We also quote from the testimony of the plaintiff's witness, Morgan Green, as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kinney v. Barnhisel
... ... Lundahl v. Kansas City, 209 S.W. 564; Reeves v ... Peoria Ry. Co., 196 Ill.App. 322; Mullalley v ... Haslam, (Nebr.) 184 N.W. 910; Texas Co. v. Ingram, ... (Tenn.) 64 S.W.2d 208; Ravare v. McCormich & Co., ... (La.) 166 So. 183; Pettaway v. Drug Co., (La.) ... 166 So. 902; City of ... ...
-
Frazier v. United States, 18492.
...does not render the employer liable. Jolly Motor Livery Corp. v. Allenberg, 188 Tenn. 452, 221 S.W.2d 513 (1949); Texas Co. v. Ingram, 16 Tenn.App. 267, 64 S.W.2d 208 (1933); 57 C.J.S. Master and Servant § 563(b) (1948). Even if the master-servant relationship existed between Nabors and app......
-
Johnson v. Steele
... ... Lusk, Judge ... Action ... by E. A. Johnson against E. T. Steele and another, and the ... Texas Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant Texas ... Company appeals ... Affirmed ... This is ... an ... the injured assistant was a subagent of the oil company ... In ... Texas Company v. Ingram, 16 Tenn.App. 267, 64 S.W.2d ... 208, the facts were that the Texas Company and one J. L ... Roberts signed a contract very similar to ... ...
-
Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Skaggs
...are consolidated for trial and tried simultaneously to the same jury. They would fall in the general category ofTexas Co. v. Ingram, 16 Tenn.App. 267, 288, 64 S.W.2d 208, where mother and child were riding in the same automobile when injured by collision with another car. The jury both case......