Weidmer v. Stott
Decision Date | 13 February 1932 |
Docket Number | No. 12628.,12628. |
Citation | 48 S.W.2d 389 |
Parties | WEIDMER et al. v. STOTT. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Wichita County; W. W. Cook, Judge.
Action by J. C. Stott against R. T. Weidmer and others. From judgment for plaintiff after remittitur, defendants appeal.
Reversed and remanded.
E. M. Mann and Raymond M. Myers, both of Wichita Falls, for appellants.
Jno. M. Martin and C. M. McFarland, both of Wichita Falls, for appellee.
R. T. Weidmer, J. L. Dashner, and George Dashner, doing business as partners under the trade name of Texas Electric Company in the city of Wichita Falls, and engaged in operating a filling station for the purpose of selling to the public gasoline and oil and automobile tires and repairing cars and changing and repairing automobile tires, had in their employment J. C. Stott. On about September 9, 1930, Stott undertook, as part of the duties of his employment, to change tires on an automobile by using a jack to raise the car. He instituted this suit against the members of the partnership to recover damages for injuries which he alleged were sustained by him while so engaged by reason of being struck in the stomach by the lifting lever of the jack when the jack slipped. According to his further allegations, the slipping of the jack was the result of its defective condition, in that it was an old secondhand, obsolete jack, practically worn out, with the catches and lugs so badly worn as to make it dangerous. His claim for damages was based upon a charge of negligence on the part of the defendants in furnishing him the jack for use in that defective and dangerous condition. The defendants have prosecuted this appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff.
The judgment was based upon findings of the jury upon special issues submitted to them; the amount of the verdict returned and for which judgment was originally rendered being $2,710.50. But, upon complaint made by the defendants in their motion for new trial of misconduct of the jury, the court found that the jury was guilty of misconduct, and by reason thereof required the plaintiff to remit the sum of $1,355.25, which remittitur was duly filed, and thereupon the judgment originally rendered was reduced in that sum, leaving a final judgment for plaintiffs in the sum of $1,355.25. And thereupon the motion for new trial was overruled.
The record shows that, upon the hearing of the motion for new trial, the defendants introduced as witnesses four of the jurors who took part in the trial of the case. It appears conclusively from the testimony of those jurors that the plaintiff was allowed attorney's fees which were included in the amount of damages awarded; and the trial judge so found, but further concluded that the remittitur required would cure the verdict of that taint. Some of the jurors stated that one-half of the amount of damages shown in the verdict was allowed to cover plaintiff's attorney's fees, while the testimony of others was somewhat indefinite as to the amount that was allowed for attorney's fees.
L. W. McCrory, foreman of the jury, testified in part as follows:
Another juror, C. I. Halford, testified in substance that he first concluded that plaintiff should be awarded $3,500 damages, and that he thought that the doctors and attorneys should get one-half of that sum, but that later he agreed with the other jurors in the verdict rendered.
Another juror, J. S. Doss, testified in part as follows:
Another juror, J. W. Parker, testified in part as follows:
Misconduct of the jury was thus definitely established, and under the decisions of the Commission of Appeals in St. Louis Southwestern R. Co. v. Lewis, 5 S.W.(2d) 765, same case on rehearing, 10 S.W.(2d) 534, and City of Waco v. Darnell, 35 S.W.(2d) 134—in each of which it was held that a verdict tainted with misconduct of the jury was not cured by a remittitur filed—the judgment of the trial court must be reversed. According to the rule announced in those decisions, in order to overrule the assignment based on such misconduct, it must clearly appear that the appellant has suffered no injury by reason thereof. We cannot say that the remittitur required by the trial judge was sufficient to cure the vice in the verdict rendered; especially so since the testimony of all the jurors left it uncertain and indefinite as to just how much the jury finally agreed to allow for attorneys' fees.
In St. Louis S. W. R. Co. v. Lewis (Tex. Com. App.) 10 S.W.(2d) 534, in an opinion by Justice Critz, the following was said: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Burk Royalty Co. v. Walls
...240 S.W. 517 (1922); Coleman v. Texas & Pac. Ry., 241 S.W.2d 308 (Tex.Civ.App. Dallas 1951, writ ref'd); Weidmer v. Stott, 48 S.W.2d 389 (Tex.Civ.App. Ft. Worth 1932, writ ref'd). Burk Royalty's other points of error are overruled. The judgment of the court of civil appeals is Dissenting op......
-
Texas Coca Cola Bottling Co. v. Lovejoy
...Red Star Coaches v. Lamb, Tex.Civ.App., 41 S.W.2d 523; American Ry. Express Co. v. Sawyer, Tex.Civ.App., 297 S.W. 873; Weidmer v. Stott, Tex.Civ.App., 48 S.W.2d 389; Morgan v. Maunders, Tex. Civ.App., 37 S.W.2d 791; Dallas Ry. Co. v. Skorodynski, Tex.Civ.App., 292 S.W. 638; Great West Mill ......
-
Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Porter
...v. Dallas Hotel Co., 111 Tex. 461, 240 S.W. 517; Roosth & Genecov Production Co. v. White, 152 Tex. 619, 262 S.W.2d 99; Weidmer v. Stott, Tex.Civ.App., 48 S.W.2d 389, (Writ Ref.), and the like. The cases cited by appellants so hold, but, after a study of the entire record, we think it is ev......
-
Roosth & Genecov Production Co. v. White
...564, 186 S.W.2d 954, 961, 159 A.L.R. 125; Solgaard v. Texas & N. O. R. Co., 149 Tex. 181, 185, 229 S.W.2d 777, 779; Weidmer v. Stott, Tex.Civ.App., 1932, 48 S.W.2d 389, 391, wr. of er. refused; and Kress & Co. v. Jennings, Tex.Civ.App., 64 S.W.2d 1074, appl. for wr. of er. dism. The respond......