Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Prunty
| Decision Date | 20 April 1921 |
| Docket Number | (No. 2860.) |
| Citation | 230 S.W. 396 |
| Parties | TEXAS & P. RY. CO. v. PRUNTY. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Suit by J. V. Prunty against the Texas & Pacific Railway Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appealed to the Court of Civil Appeals, which certified questions to the Supreme Court. Questions answered.
George Thompson, of Fort Worth, and McMurray & Gettys, of Decatur, for appellant.
M. W. Burch, of Decatur, and R. F. Spencer, of San Antonio, for appellee.
The suit was one for damages to some mares and colts belonging to the plaintiff, caused by alleged rough handling by the railway company in their shipment. In proving the damages two witnesses for the plaintiff were asked to give their opinion as to "the reasonable market value of the animals at destination if they had been handled with ordinary care and delivered in good condition." In another form the question called for their opinion as to "the difference, if any, between the reasonable market value of the animals at destination in the condition in which they did arrive and that in which they would have arrived if handled with ordinary care and diligence." Objection was made to the questions upon the ground that the answer to them would call for a conclusion of the witnesses which they were not qualified to give, since it involved a mixed question of law and fact. The objection was overruled and the witnesses permitted to answer. On the appeal a majority of the honorable Court of Civil Appeals for the Second District held that the objection was good and should have been sustained, their view being that the questions called for a conclusion on the very issue to be determined by the jury. Chief Justice Conner dissented from this holding.
The questions certified are (1) whether the trial court ruled correctly in permitting answers to the questions; and (2) whether the admission of the testimony, if erroneous, required a reversal of the judgment.
We understand from the certificate that no question was made as to the witnesses being experienced stock men, or as to their competency to give an expert opinion in answer to the questions propounded. Our answer to the first question is given on this assumption.
We think the testimony was admissible.
The measure of damages in the case was the difference between the market value of the animals at destination in the condition in which they would have been delivered but for the carrier's negligence, and their market value in their actual condition as caused by its negligence. The only way the damages could be proved was by evidence of such respective values. Testimony as to the first could only be given in answer to a hypothetical question, involving as its basis the assumption that the animals had not been subjected to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rosenblum v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada, 2006
... ... Life ... Ins. Soc., (N. J.) 137 A. 414; Redman v. Ins. Co., ... (Wis.) 4 N.W. 591; Central Company v. Alexander, ... (Texas) 56 S.W. 864; McNulty v. Land Company, ... (Cal.) 187 P. 97; 21 R. C. L. 462; Lumber Company v ... Independent Producer's Consolidated, (Wyo ... ...
-
Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co.
...by a money standard from evidence, and cannot be taken upon conjecture. 3 Sutherland on Damages (4th Ed.) § 933; T. & P. Ry. Co. v. Prunty (Tex. Sup.) 230 S. W. 396; Sabine Land & Improvement Co. v. Perry (Tex. Civ. App.) 54 S. W. 327, 328; Dickerson v. S. A. U. & G. Ry. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.......
-
Panhandle & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Montgomery
... 140 S.W.2d 241 ... PANHANDLE & S. F. RY. CO. et al ... MONTGOMERY ... No. 5132 ... Court of Civil Appeals of Texas". Amarillo ... March 25, 1940 ... Rehearing Denied May 13, 1940 ... Page 242 ... COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED ... Page 243 ... \xC2" ... v. Foster, Tex.Civ.App., 89 S.W. 450; International & G. N. R. Co. et al. v. Startz, 37 Tex.Civ.App. 51, 82 S.W. 1071; Texas & P. R. Co. v. Prunty, 111 ... Page 248 ... Tex. 162, 230 S.W. 396; Texas & N. O. R. Co. v. Lide et al., Tex.Civ.App., 117 S.W.2d 479; Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v ... ...
-
Wichita Valley Ry. Co. v. Turbeville
...& T. C. R. Co. v. Roberts, 101 Tex. 418, 108 S. W. 808. The testimony does not come within the rule of decision in T. & P. Ry. v. Prunty, 111 Tex. 162, 230 S. W. 396, since the witness was left to determine for himself what degree of care defendants owed to plaintiffs, without even stating ......