Court Opinion

ID: 9675396
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:52:35.645927+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:34.214062
License: Public Domain

GRAVES, Presiding Judge
(Dissenting).
I think this cause should be affirmed and here give my reasons therefor.
It is undisputed that appellant, while driving his truck in an opposite direction to the injured parties on a highway and while appellant’s left-hand road was obstructed by another, drove over onto his left-hand side of the road and struck the car of the complaining witness, such truck being over on the one-half of the road belonging to the injured party and not on appellant’s one-half thereof. This was admitted by appellant, who often traveled this road and was familiar with its hazards. He testified as follows:
“When my right rear wheel got off of the road on the shoulder, I hit the car; I couldn’t say just how far I went, but I hit it immediately after it slipped sideways. I did not apply my brakes, and didn’t have time to use my horn. The automobile in which the parties were injured was on its proper side of the road. When my wheel slipped off of the road, it threw the front of my truck on my wrong side of the road. My front never went off of the pavement. If I had remained on my side of the road, I wouldn’t have hit the car. I struck the car at more or less a sideways angle; not completely sideways. I angled across when my wheel slipped off. There appeared to be no damage to the right side of my truck.”
Unquestionably the appellant was on the wrong side of the road in close proximity to the party injured and was violating Article 801, Vernon’s P.C. The question of negligence is pretermitted.
The next question then arises from his defense. He testified that it had been raining and that the road was wet; that *526his rear wheels slipped off the pavement and that threw his front wheels over the median line of the road and into the car of Mr. Tyler. In other words, it was an unavoidable accident. In his statement introduced by the state, he stated that it had been raining some and the street was slick. Relative to the rain and the wet condition of the road, the lady who was in the car in which she was injured testified:
“The sun was shining and the weather was clear. * * * It was a clear day at the time of the accident — I don’t have a good memory. From my recollection, it was a clear day.”
This lady’s son, who was driving her car, testified:
“It was light, and the weather was dry. Winkler Drive is a paved highway, and I think it was dry.”
Appellant then offered his testimony above quoted, which amounted to a defense of an unavoidable accident, which the trial court heard and evidently discarded.
Unquestionably appellant was guilty of a violation of the law of the road (Article 801, P.C.) and could only defend on his plea of unavoidable accident. The trial court heard the appellant’s version and seemed not to have given it credit but believed to the contrary under the evidence. This he had a right to do. The negligence was a question for the court. See Huff v. State, 123 Tex. Cr. R. 238, 58 S.W. (2d) 113; Pehl v. State, 153 Tex. Cr. R. 553, 223 S.W. (2d) 238; Merryman v. State, 153 Tex. Crim. Rep. 593, 223 S.W. (2d) 630; Dunham v. State, 148 Tex. Cr. R. 329, 186 S.W. (2d) 820.
It is suggested that because the state introduced appellant’s statement wherein he stated that the street was wet and that his rear wheels slipped off the pavement that such facts show that the state proved that the cause of the collision was an unavoidable accident. Again, we quote from the testimony of the police officer who investigated'the accident as follows:
“The accident happened about 3:50 P.M. I got a radio call on a major accident, and went there in answer to the call. I don’t know where I was when I got the call; we were cruising in that part of town. When I got there, I saw Mr. and Mrs. Tyler who have just testified; they were putting them in the ambulance. I saw the motor vehicle that had been involved. One was a truck, ’47 Ford truck, and the other a Chevrolet, I believe a ’38 or ’39. The road was dry when I made my investí*527gation; the pavement was dry. I took some measurements. Winkler, at that location, is 21 feet wide. The slab is concrete; there is no curb there. This was near the intersection of Joplin Street. The accident happened in the intersection of Winkler and Joplin. I determined the point of impact by the debris I found in the road. I determined that it occurred 12 feet from the north side of Winkler Drive which is 21 feet wide, and goes northwest and southeast. Joplin doesn’t have a slab like Winkler does, and it is about 32 feet wide. The truck had traveled 12 feet. Joplin intersects Winkler at an angle at that location; it comes in at an angle on one side, and at another angle on the other side. The accident happened on the north side of the street even with the curb line of Joplin Street, on the south of the street. It was past the curb line about 15 feet. The street runs at an angle across Winkler Drive. The passenger vehicle was damaged on the left front, and the truck also was damaged on the left front. Winkler is 21 feet wide, and the debris and skidmarks were 12 feet from the north side of the street, which would make the No. 1 vehicle, the truck, on the wrong side of the street. There were no skidmarks leading up to either vehicle from where they stood when I viewed them. There were no skidmarks at the point of impact where the cars hit and skidded on the pavement at the point of impact. I don’t know the defendant other than seeing him at that time I took a written statement from him after giving him the warning that appears at the top of the sheet you show me. The statement was signed by the defendant. The pavement, according to my investigation report here, was wet.”
These matters were issues of fact for the court, and the court looks to all the testimony. See Fowler v. State, 116 Tex. Cr. 645, 31 S.W. (2d ( 450.
In the case of Cross v. State, 100 Tex. Cr. R. 88, 271 S.W. 621, it is said:
“A case is tried on all the testimony produced, and if all the testimony, no matter from what source, is sufficient to justify the conclusion of guilt reached, this court would not confine itself to an examination solely of the testimony given by state witnesses.”
All the facts show that appellant was on the wrong side of the road. The issue of an unavoidable accident was for the trial court, whose verdict evidences the fact that he found against such.
*528The judgment should be affirmed, and I enter my respectful dissent herein.