Court Opinion

ID: 9668982
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 02:35:29.041348+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:50.928275
License: Public Domain

DAVIS, Justice.
I dissent. This was originally written to be the opinion of the court, and I file it, with minor changes, as my dissent in the case.
This is an intersectional collision case. The appellee was driving his car in a westerly direction along Stanford Street. Approaching from his right, Darlene Babb, minor daughter of Anderson C. Babb, was driving her father’s car in a southerly direction down Durham Street. This happened in the City of University Park in Dallas County, At the point of intersection, where Stanford intersects Durham Street, there was a stop sign that required the appellee to stop. There was no stop sign on Durham Street. Darlene Babb was acquainted with the intersections. She knew about the stop sign coming on Stanford Street. She could go across Stanford Street without stopping. When Darlene Babb was in about 75 feet of Stanford Street, she noticed the appellee coming along Stanford Street towards the intersection. She testified that he was driving at a fast rate of speed, and that it did not appear that he was going to stop. When she was in about 40 feet of the intersection she realized he was not going to stop, and she put on her brakes. She skidded her wheels into the intersection and hit the ap-pellee about four to six feet inside the intersection. The car she was driving stopped immediately. The car of the ap-pellee proceeded on down the street.
As a result of the collision, Darlene Babb suffered personal injuries. The case was tried before a jury, and the jury convicted the appellee of failing to stop as he entered the intersection, and that he did not keep a proper lookout, and both acts constituted a proximate cause of the accident. The jury also convicted the appellee of failing to timely apply his brakes, but they found that that was not negligence. The jury found that Darlene Babb did not fail to keep a proper lookout, that she did not fail to apply her brakes, and that she did not fail to keep her car under proper control. Yet, the jury found that she was operating the car at a greater rate of speed than a person of ordinary care and prudence would have driven the same under the same or similar circumstances, and that such negligence was a proximate cause of the collision. The trial court entered a take nothing judgment of the case, and Anderson C. Babb, appellant, has perfected his appeal, and brings forward four points of error.
After the verdict was returned, appellant filed a motion for judgment non obstante veredicto. He requested the court to disregard the findings of the jury of contributory negligence against Darlene Babb, and to enter a judgment on the verdict.
By his first three points, the appellant complains of the error of the trial court in entering the judgment that he did, because: (1) there is no evidence to support the answer of the jury; (2) there was insufficient evidence to support the said answer; (3) and the answer was against the overwhelming weight and preponderance of the evidence and caused the rendition of an improper judgment. According to the evi*664dence, Darlene Babb was driving at a legal rate of speed in a suburban part of the City of University Park, and was approaching the street intersection at a time when she had the right-of-way. She noticed the ap-pellee approaching the intersection from her left. She knew that he had a stop sign. She knew that she had the right-of-way to go through the street intersection without stopping. At the time when she observed his speed and his failure to stop, she did everything within her power to prevent the accident. There is no evidence in the record that Darlene Babb was driving the automobile at an excessive rate of speed. The only evidence shows that she was driving the automobile at a speed of 20-25 miles per hour; a legal rate of speed. She kept a proper lookout; she applied the brakes; and she kept the car under proper control. Under these findings (driving at a legal rate of speed of less than 30 miles per hour) she could not be guilty of driving at a faster rate of speed than a person of ordinary care and prudence would have driven the automobile. Holly v. Blue Bonnet Express Company, Tex.Civ.App., 275 S.W.2d 737, wr. ref., n. r. e.; Braumler v. Mrs. Hazelwood, Admr’x, Tex., 347 S.W.2d 560, (Vol. 4 Tex.Sp.Ct.Journal, 506) ; Feyrer v. Durbrow, 172 Wis. 71, 178 N.W. 306; Martin v. Cazedessus, 15 La.App. 100, 130 So. 129; Maguire et al. v. Brogin, 314 Pa. 306, 171 A. 578; Barrington v. Sarles, 92 Cal.App. 5, 267 P. 585; Moeller v. Packard, 86 Cal.App. 459, 261 P. 315; Buckbee v. Schofield, 108 Conn. 560, 143 A. 884; Hunt v. Whitlock’s Adm’r, 259 Ky. 286, 82 S.W.2d 364; Cowden et al. v. Crippen, 101 Mont. 187, 53 P.2d 98; Ferrula v. Santa Fe Bus Lines, Cal.App., 189 P.2d 294. Excessive speed alone, without other factual evidence of negligence, is insufficient to sustain a complaint for negligence on the part of a driver of a motor vehicle. Myers v. Korbly, Fla.App., 103 So.2d 215; Blashfield’s Cyc. of Auto.Law & Prac., Vol. 10, p. 575, Sec. 6559. All that is required of a person, with the right-of-way, is that they exercise due care for their own safety. Intges v. Dunn, Tex.Civ.App., 311 S.W.2d 877, wr. ref. n. r. e. The law does not require that a right-of-way, lawfully obtained, must be surrendered in an abstract anticipation of the negligent or unlawful act of another. McCall v. Williams, Tex.Civ. App., 311 S.W.2d 743, wr. ref. n. r. e.; Texas & N. O. R. Co. v. Brannen, 140 Tex. 52, 166 S.W.2d 112; Firestone Tire and Rubber Co., et al. v. Rhodes, Tex.Civ.App., 256 S.W.2d 448, n. w. h.; Miller v. Tilton, Tex.Civ.App., 289 S.W.2d 426, n. w. h.
I cannot conceive of the position taken by the other Judges. It seems that they take the position that Darlene Babb having slid the wheels of her father’s car a distance of 56 feet, over all, was unquestionably driving at an excessive rate of speed. According to Blashfield’s Cyclopedia of Automobile Law and Practice, and all charts, you have first got to take away from the distance of 56 feet the full length of the car. That would decrease the distance that the car actually slid by about 12 feet, with a total distance of sliding of the wheels of about 44 feet. According to this information, the greater rate of speed that Darlene Babb could have been driving would have been 20 to 25 miles per hour. That is in conjunction with her testimony. Therefore, she could not have been driving at an excessive rate of speed. According to Blashfield’s Cyclopedia of Automobile Law and Practice, Vol. 2, p. 226, Sec. 994, and Vol. 2, p. 233, Sec. 995, the law with reference to intersectional collisions must be based upon priority of the person who would reasonably reach the intersection first, reasonableness and lawful operation of both vehicles. Under the evidence in this case, Darlene Babb would have unquestionably reached the intersection first, if she had not applied her brakes to try to prevent the appellee from hitting her. He unlawfully entered Durham Street, and Darlene Babb unquestionably had the right-of-way. I cannot see where there is any evidence to support the jury’s findings of contributory negligence on her part.
Darlene Babb was unable to estimate the rate of speed that the appellee was going, *665"but she knew that he was not going to stop. "Whether or not he was driving at a reasonable rate of speed was for the jury to decide. The jury convicted him of not keeping a proper lookout, and of violating the law. The City had fixed the maximum rate of speed. Darlene Babb was driving less than that rate of speed. There is no evidence of any excessive rate of speed whatever. Blashfield’s Cyclopedia of Automobile Law and Practice, Vol. 1, Part 2, :Secs. 732 through 734.
For the errors hereinabove pointed out, I would reverse the judgment of the trial •court and render judgment for the appellants.