Texas Dept. of Public Safety v. Nesmith
| Decision Date | 30 November 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 1214,1214 |
| Citation | 559 S.W.2d 443 |
| Parties | TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, Appellant, v. David Vega NESMITH, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
This is a driver's license suspension case. David Vega Nesmith (Nesmith) was involved in an automobile accident in the City of Corpus Christi, Texas, on October 9, 1975. He was notified on December 9, 1975 by the Department of Public Safety (Department) that his driver's license and his motor vehicle registration licenses would be suspended as of December 30, 1975, unless he took appropriate action to prevent such suspension. Pursuant to his request for an administrative hearing, a petition therefor was duly filed in the Municipal Court of Corpus Christi, Texas, and at a hearing thereon which was held on February 12, 1976, it was ordered that Nesmith's driver's license registration of motor vehicles owned by him be suspended "as provided in Article 6701h, V.A.T.C.S., Section 5," and that a "security deposit of $1,064.00" be submitted to the Department within 20 days after the hearing. Nesmith appealed to the County Court at Law of Nueces County, Texas, where a trial de novo was held before the court. Judgment was rendered on January 5, 1977, which, in effect, decreed that the evidence as to the amount and extent of the damages to the other vehicle involved was insufficient to suspend Nesmith's driver's license and motor vehicle registration licenses. The Department has appealed.
The Department, in an appeal to the county court from an administrative order suspending a driver's license, if the suspension is to be upheld, is required to prove by competent evidence: 1) the occurrence of an automobile accident in which the affected driver of an automobile is involved; 2) the geographical location of the accident; 3) the probability of judgment being rendered against such person if suit should be brought against him or her by either the owner or the occupants of the other vehicle involved in the accident; and, 4) damages for personal injuries and /or property loss, if any, sustained by any of the other persons. The questions to be answered in this appeal are whether the Department met its burden of proof with respect to the probability of judgment and property damage factors.
The only evidence consisted of Nesmith's testimony; certain official records of the Department which were introduced by the Department under the provision of Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 3731a (Supp.1977); and the testimony of David Contreras, Jr., who stated that he was a "driver's license trooper" and a "deputy custodian of records" of the Department. The accident occurred at a street intersection in Corpus Christi, and was investigated by a Corpus Christi City policeman. He did not testify at the trial in the county court. According to the policeman's report, Nesmith was driving "Car No. 1" and Normaprocha Trevino was driving "Car No. 2" immediately prior to the collision. "Car No. 2" was owned by Raul Villalpando.
The Department's records, upon which it relied in determining the probability of judgment, consisted of the investigating officer's report and a statement by the "Manager of Safety-Responsibility, Texas Department of Public Safety," the duly authorized custodian of the Department's records. The investigating officer's report showed that Nesmith's car struck the Trevino car, and that the collision occurred at an intersection of two streets in Corpus Christi. The report did not indicate the monetary amount of damage to "Car No. 2", but simply noted that it had a damage rating of "RP-3". The pertinent parts of the statement read as follows:
"The accident occurred as set out in the attached copy of the investigating officer's report and the probability of a judgment was determined from the following facts:
Cause factor: Driver # 1 Southbound on South 19th. Driver # 2 Eastbound on Agnes. Driver # 1 disregarded flashing red light and collided with Driver # 2. Reports indicate no negligence on part of Driver # 2.
Property Damage Reports indicate $900.00 damage sustained to 1973 Chrysler owned by Raul Villalpando.
The facts listed above were taken from the driver's accident reports and relied upon and used in evidence by the Department under the specific authorization of Section 3, Article 6701h, V.A.T.C.S."
State Trooper Contreras testified on behalf of the Department. He said that he knew from his own personal knowledge that the Department based the amount of damages upon collision estimates obtained from the party that the Department determined was not negligent in the collision and that those records were kept in Austin at all times. He further stated that he did not investigate the accident in question; that he did not have any personal knowledge about those automobiles; and that he had not seen either of the vehicles since the accident.
Nesmith testified that immediately preceding the collision, he was proceeding along 19th Street; that he did not see the red light at the intersection of 19th and Agnes streets; and that he hit the other automobile "right in the middle" without sounding a horn or applying his brakes. He further testified that he was given a "ticket" and that he paid a fine for "disregarding a flashing red light"; however, he also stated that the accident was as much the fault of the driver of the other car as it was his because "they had a blinking yellow light, too," and that both he and the driver of the other car "were negligent" at the time in question. He said that he had not been contacted by the parties involved in the accident nor had he been served with a citation notifying him that they had filed suit against him, nor had he received any other form of notice that those parties intended to obtain judgment against him as a result of the accident. He also testified that he did not have automobile insurance at the time of the accident; that he had not received a written release from the driver or passengers of the other automobile; that he had not agreed with any of those parties to pay for the damage to the car by an installment agreement, or otherwise; that he had not made a deposit of security to take care of the damage sustained by the other vehicle, nor had he demonstrated proof of financial responsibility for three years; and, that subsequent to the suspension of his driving...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Porter v. State
...162 Tex.Cr.R. 122, 283 S.W.2d 52 (1955); Hartman v. Harder, 322 S.W.2d 555 (Tex.Civ.App. Amarillo 1959, no writ). Texas Dept. of Public Safety v. Nesmith, 559 S.W.2d 443 (Tex.Civ.App. Corpus Christi 1977, no writ), was a driver's license suspension case. The Department sought to prove the a......
-
Sciarrilla v. Osborne
...are subject to the same rules of evidence respecting relevancy, competency, or materiality as any other evidence. Texas Dep't of Public Safety v. Nesmith, 559 S.W.2d 443, 447 (Tex.Civ.App.--Corpus Christi 1977, no writ). In the instant case, appellant merely made a generic "hearsay" objecti......
-
Saunders v. Saunders
...official or employee of the Department who had personal knowledge of the facts upon which the conclusion is based. Texas Dept. of Public Safety v. Nesmith, 559 S.W.2d 443, 447 (Tex.Civ.App.--Corpus Christi 1977, no writ) (emphasis added). Accord McCrary v. State, 604 S.W.2d 113, 115 (Tex.Cr......
-
Wright v. Lewis
...does not mean that ex parte statements, hearsay, conclusions and opinions contained therein are admissible. Texas Department of Public Safety v. Nesmith, 559 S.W.2d 443, 447 (Tex.Civ.App.--Corpus Christi 1977, no writ); Smith v. Selz, 395 S.W.2d 692, 696 (Tex.Civ.App.--Fort Worth 1965, writ......
-
CHAPTER 4.I. Motion Authorities
...195 (Tex. App.—Tyler 1995, writ denied) (investigator's report properly excluded as hearsay). Tex. Dep't of Pub. Safety v. Nesmith, 559 S.W.2d 443 (Tex. Civ. App.—Corpus Christi, 1977, no writ) (writing must fall within some exception to hearsay rule to be admissible, even if authentic). Si......
-
CHAPTER 8.I. Motion Authorities
...(statements not within the public records exception to the hearsay rule were properly excluded). Tex. Dep't of Pub. Safety v. Nesmith, 559 S.W.2d 443, 447 (Tex. Civ. App.—Corpus Christi 1977, no writ) (to be admissible, writing must fall within some exception to hearsay rule even if authent......