Tijerina v. Nerio

Decision Date07 June 1973
Docket NumberNo. 763,763
Citation497 S.W.2d 72
PartiesHilario G. TIJERINA et al., Appellants, v. Vlcente NERIO et al., Appellees.
CourtTexas Court of Appeals

Dyer, Redford, Burnett, Wray, Woolsey & Dunham, H. T. Hermansen, Jr., Corpus Christi, for appellants.

Bonilla, Read, Rodriguez, Beckman & Bonilla, Gerald H. Beckman, Corpus Christi, for appellees.

OPINION

BISSETT, Justice.

This is a venue case. Vicente Nerio, Luciana Nerio, John Nerio, and Marciella Flores, plaintiffs, filed suit in the District Court of Nueces County, Texas, against Hilario G. Tijerina and King Transportation Company, defendants, to recover for alleged damages arising out of an automobile-truck collision. Each of the defendants filed a plea of privilege to be sued in Hidalgo County, where they resided and were domiciled. Plaintiffs sought to maintain venue in Nueces County under the provisions of Subdivision 9a, Article 1995, Vernon's Ann.Civ.St.

The trial court, after a non-jury hearing, overruled both pleas of privilege. The defendants have appealed. We reverse and remand.

Findings of fact were neither requested nor filed. We must presume, therefore, that the trial court resolved in plaintiffs' favor every issue of fact raised by the evidence, and must view the evidence in the light most favorable to such findings, disregarding all that is contrary thereto. James v. Drye, 159 Tex. 321, 320 S.W.2d 319 (1959).

A tractor-trailer, hereinafter called 'truck', owned by King Transportation Company, collided with an automobile owned by Vicente Nerio. Hilario G. Tijerina was driving the truck. John Nerio was driving the automobile. The collision occurred in Nueces County, Texas on January 5, 1972.

Plaintiffs alleged that Tijerina, the driver of the truck, was travelling at an excessive rate of speed, failed to maintain a proper lookout, failed to apply brakes, failed to control the vehicle, improperly and negligently changed lanes, failed to yield the right of way 'to vehicle in an adjoining lane', and failed to yield the right of way 'to vehicle in an adjoining crossover'; that such acts of omission and commission constituted negligence, and that each was a proximate cause of the collision.

It being undisputed that Hilario G. Tijerina was an employee of King Transportation Company and that he was acting within the scope and course of his employment at the time of the occurrence in question, the remaining venue facts under Subdivision 9a that plaintiffs were required to prove in order to maintain venue in Nueces County were: (1) that Tijerina was guilty of an act or omission of negligence which occurred in Nueces County, and (2) that such act or omission was a proximate cause of the collision. Heldt v. McCreary, 399 S.W.2d 181, 186 (Tex.Civ.App.--Corpus Christi 1966, n.w.h.); Calhoun v. Padgett, 409 S.W.2d 890 (Tex.Civ.App.--Tyler 1966, n.w.h.); Shelburne v. Christie-Hickman Drilling Company, 295 S .W.2d 476 (Tex.Civ.App.--Amarillo 1956, n.w.h.)

Venue facts must be proved by a preponderance of the evidence. Banks v. Collins, 152 Tex. 265, 257 S.W.2d 97 (1953); Compton v. Elliott, 126 Tex. 232, 88 S.W.2d 91 (1935). Venue cannot be established by implication. Burtis v. Butler Bros., 148 Tex. 543, 226 S.W.2d 825 (1950).

It is settled that 'the occurrence of an accident, or a collision, is not of itself evidence of negligence'. Rankin v. Nash-Texas Co., 129 Tex. 396, 105 S.W.2d 195, 199 (1937); McFarlin v. Taylor, 420 S.W.2d 188 (Tex.Civ.App.--Amarillo 1967, n.w.h.)

The evidence tending to establish the venue facts is very weak. At best, it is scarcely more than a scintilla. What little evidence there is with respect to Tijerina's negligence is summarized in the next succeeding three paragraphs.

The collision occurred in the paved cross-over immediately to the east of the intersection of U.S. Highway 77 Business Route to Bishop, Texas, with the main U.S. Highway 77, a four-lane divided highway with a grass median strip that separates the two south-bound lanes from the two north-bound lanes. A stop sign requires traffic moving East on the Business Route to stop at its intersection with the south-bound lanes of U.S. 77 South.

The only witness who testified to facts relating to the accident was Vicente Nerio, a party plaintiff. He stated that his automobile was proceeding (East) along U.S. Highway 77 Business Route toward U.S. 77 North. Upon arriving at the intersection of the Business Route with the south-bound lanes of U.S. 77, John Nerio stopped the automobile in obedience to the stop sign that was facing him. While it was stopped, Vicente Nerio, who was riding in the front seat, noticed a truck which was travelling South in the right-hand lane of the south-bound lanes of U.S. 77; it was about a quarter of a mile distant at that time. The automobile driver, John Nerio, subsequently entered the intersection and had crossed both lanes of U.S. 77 South when the right front of the truck struck the left side of the automobile over its left rear wheel. The automobile was damaged. He further testified that the truck changed lanes before it struck the automobile, that it laid down skid marks, and that it jackknifed.

The witness drew a diagram of the scene of the accident on a blackboard, but the diagram (or a picture thereof) is not part of the record. Photographs were introduced in evidence by defendants for the purpose of showing the 'scene of the accident', the 'intersection', the 'place of the accident', and 'skid marks that are left by the vehicles involved'. They were examined by Nerio, but he did not mark the point of impact thereon, nor did he identify or designate any of the skid marks that are shown by the photos as being laid down by either the automobile or the truck. The photographs show that an officer of the law and another man, neither of whom were identified or testified, made measurements at the scene of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Rubenstein Foods, Inc. v. Winter Garden, Inc., 1531
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • 11 Octubre 1979
    ...of the facts than by ordering it transferred to Dallas County, Texas. See Jackson v. Hall, 147 Tex. 245, 214 S.W.2d 458 (1948); Tijerina v. Nerio, 497 S.W.2d 72 (Tex.Civ.App. Corpus Christi 1973, no writ); Commercial Standard Insurance Company v. Nunn, 445 S.W.2d 586 (Tex.Civ.App. Texarkana......
  • Morehouse v. Brink, 2699
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • 30 Diciembre 1982
    ...of the facts. See Jackson v. Hall, 147 Tex. 245, 214 S.W.2d 458 (1948); Rubenstein Foods, Inc. v. Winter Garden, Inc., supra; Tijerina v. Nerio, 497 S.W.2d 72 (Tex.Civ.App.--Corpus Christi 1973, no writ). Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the cause remanded for a......
  • Warren v. Davis, 1081
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • 30 Junio 1976
    ...either active or passive, in Matagorda County, proof of acts constituting negligence may be made by circumstantial evidence. Tijerina v. Nerio, 497 S.W.2d 72 (Tex.Civ.App.--Corpus Christi 1973, no writ); Southland Supply Company v. Gebhart, 439 S.W.2d 393 (Tex.Civ.App.--Texarkana 1969, no w......
  • Martinez v. Angerstein
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • 31 Diciembre 1974
    ...(3) and that such negligence was a proximate cause of plaintiff's injuries. Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann., Art. 1995, § 9a (1964); Tijerina v. Nerio, 497 S.W.2d 72 (Tex.Civ.App.--Corpus Christi 1973, no It is undisputed that Antonio Trevino Martinez was an employee of William F. Ben Abney and that ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT