Texas Emp. Ins. Ass'n v. Cruz
Citation | 280 S.W.2d 388 |
Decision Date | 18 May 1955 |
Docket Number | No. 12861,12861 |
Parties | TEXAS EMPLOYERS' INSURANCE ASSOCIATION, Appellant, v. Cleto CRUZ, Appellee. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Eskridge, Groce & Hebdon, San Antonio, for appellant.
Putman & Putman, San Antonio, for appellee.
This is a workmen's compensation case in which Cleto Cruz was the claimant, Texas Employers' Insurance Association, the insurance carrier, and Walsh & Burney Company, the employer. The trial was to a jury and resulted in judgment in favor of claimant for total and permanent disability. His average weekly wage was fixed at $46 per week and judgment was rendered in a lump sum. Texas Employers' Insurance Association has prosecuted this appeal.
Appellant's first contention is that the court erred in permitting appellee's attorney before his argument to the jury, to write down the numbers of the special issues upon a blackboard and opposite the number of each special issue the answer he desired the jury to make to the same. We overrule this contention. The attorney for appellee had a right to argue to the jury the answers which he desired to the special issues submitted. He had a right to emphasize what answers he desired, in every way possible and even to beg and plead with the jury to return such answers, so long as he did not indicate to the jury the legal effect of their answers upon the judgment to be rendered. Therefore, we see no reason why counsel for appellee could not write upon a blackboard the number of the issue and opposite thereto the answer he desired, so that the jury might learn these answers not only from listening to what the attorney had to say but also from seeing them written upon a blackboard. Appellant has cited but one case in support of its contention: Wichita Transit Company v. Sanders, 214 S.W.2d 810. This was an opinion by the Fort Worth Court of Civil Appeals which has no writ of error history. In that case the judgment of the trial court was reversed on a number of grounds and we are not at all sure that the court would have reversed the case for the simple reason that a blackboard was used during the argument of counsel.
In Texas & N. O. R. Co. v. McGinnis, 130 Tex. 338, 109 S.W.2d 160, 164, affirming our opinion, 81 S.W.2d 200, the Commission of Appeals, in an opinion approved by the Supreme Court, had this to say:
It occurs to us, if counsel may beg and plead with the jury to answer certain issues yes and certain other issues no, that it would not be improper for him to write upon a blackboard the number of the issue and the answer which he desired to that issue.
It has been held that it is not improper for an attorney to make a mathematical calculation upon a blackboard to show how he arrives at the amount he feels the jury should answer as to damages. Fort Worth & Denver City Railway Co. v. Gifford, Tex.Civ.App., 244 S.W.2d 848, affirmed 151 Tex. 282, 249 S.W.2d 190, Id., Tex.Civ.App., 252 S.W.2d 204; Kimbell v. Noel, Tex.Civ.App., 228 S.W.2d 980.
Even if it be error to write the number of the issue on a blackboard and opposite it the desired answer, it seems to us that it would not be reversible error, under the provisions of Rule 434, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
Appellant's second point is as follows:
'Plaintiff's comment to the jury that plaintiff did not have enough money to bring his doctor to testify coupled with the trial court's instruction that the jury should not consider defendant's argument on plaintiff's failure to bring in this medical witness constituted reversible error.'
With reference to this matter the parties entered into the following agreement:
'That the following quotation from ground 31 correctly states the events that transpired and correctly recites the ruling of the court and the disposition of the objection in that connection:
"* * * the attorney for the defendant began to argue to the jury that the plaintiff had an experienced lawyer who knew how to try law suits and that the failure of such lawyer to bring a doctor on behalf of the plaintiff indicated that the plaintiff's doctor would not offer testimony favorable to the plaintiff, and defendant's attorney sought to proceed with further arguments on this line when the plaintiff's attorney objected to such argument and the trial (court) sustained this objection and instructed the jury not to consider the argument of defendant's counsel.'
'That the following quotation from ground 32 of the defendant's motion for new trial correctly reflects the events that transpired in the trial of the case and the ruling of the court thereon:
"The plaintiff's attorney in objecting to argument by defendants' counsel concerning the failure of the plaintiff to bring a doctor the attorney for plaintiff objected to the argument and added, in the presence of the jury, that the plaintiff did not have money to bring a doctor here to testify; that * * * the trial court sustained defendant's objection to such comment by plaintiff's attorney and instructed the jury not to consider such comment, * * *."
The record shows that appellee had been to four doctors. He had been sent to one of them by his employer, and to another by his attorney. When appellant's counsel began his criticism of appellee for not producing medical testimony, it was not clear to which of these doctors he was referring. It was not shown that these doctors were under the control of either appellant or appellee, neither was it shown that they had been subpoenaed and were available to either party. Under such circumstances the argument was improper. The fact that appellee's attorney in objecting to this argument stated to the court, within the hearing of the jury, that the reason appellee had not produced...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Botta v. Brunner
...S.W.2d 786 (Tex.Civ.App.1950); but compare, Imperial Oil, Limited v. Drlik, 234 F.2d 4 (6 Cir., 1956); Texas Employers' Insurance Association v. Cruz, 280 S.W.2d 388 (Tex.Civ.App.1955); Warren Petroleum Corporation v. Pyeatt, 275 S.W.2d 216 (Tex.Civ.App.1955); Kimbell v. Noel, 228 S.W.2d 98......
-
Sunset Brick & Tile, Inc. v. Miles
...326 S.W.2d 263, 267--268; Continental Bus System, Inc. v. Toombs, Tex.Civ.App., 325 S.W.2d 153, 163; Texas Employers' Ins. Ass'n v. Cruz, Tex.Civ.App., 280 S.W.2d 388, 390; J. D. Wright & Son Truck Line v. Chandler, Tex.Civ.App., 231 S.W.2d 786, 789. The attack upon arguments and visual aid......
-
Twin City Fire Ins. Co. v. Gibson
...answers to various special issues on a blackboard during the argument to the jury. In Texas Employers' Insurance Association v. Cruz, 280 S.W.2d 388 (Tex.Civ.App.--San Antonio 1955, writ ref'd n.r.e.) wherein the court stated: '. . . Therefore, we see no reason why counsel for appellee coul......
-
Green v. Rudsenske
...evidence, and that they were not to be considered by the jury as evidence. We see no error in this procedure. Texas Employers' Ins. Ass'n v. Cruz, Tex.Civ.App., 280 S.W.2d 388; Fort Worth & D. C. Ry. Co. v. Gifford, Tex.Civ.App., 244 S.W.2d 848; Kimbell v. Noel, Tex.Civ.App., 228 S.W.2d 980......