Court Opinion

ID: 9830282
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:03:32.699447+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:17.691923
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
After a careful consideration of the motion for a rehearing filed by appellant, we overrule such motion.
Appellee, pending the motion of appellant, has for the first time in his reply to the motion asked that the judgment be affirmed upon the further ground that the plaintiff alleged discovered peril on the part of the driver of the defendant’s truck and after such discovery negligently failed to use and exercise ordinary care and all reasonable means at hand, consistent with the safety of the truck and the driver thereof, to avoid the collision after making actual discovery of the danger and imminence thereof, and that Paul, the injured party, was in a position of peril from which he could not, or probably would not, free himself in time to escape the collision; that the evidence raised the issue of discovered peril as alleged; that the trial court submitted to the jury special issues 18 and 19, reading as follows:
“Special Issue No. 18: Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence that the driver of the truck discovered the dangerous position of the plaintiff, Paul Massey, and realized his peril, and realized that he would probably not be able to extricate himself therefrom at a time when, in the exercise of ordinary care, by the use of all the means at his command, consistent with his own safety and the safety of the defendants’ property, he could have avoided the collision? Answer Yes or No as you find the fact to be.”
“Special Issue No. 19: If you have answered Special Issue No. 18 in the affirmative, and only in that event, then answer: Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence that said truck driver, after he was apprised of the facts as shown by your affirmative answer to the preceding question, if you have so answered, failed to exercise ordinary care to use all the means at his command, consistent with his own safety, and the safety of the defendants’ property, to avoid such collision? Answer Yes or No as you find the fact to be.”
Both of such issues were by the jury answered “Yes.”
We think the request of appellee is well taken, and we now affirm the judgment upon the further ground urged.
Where the pleadings and the evidence raise the issue of discovered peril and the jury finds upon that issue in favor of the injured party, the issues of primary negligence and contributory negligence become immaterial. Dallas Railway & Terminal Co. v. Bankston (Tex.Com.App.) 51 S.W.(2d) 304, 308; Hines v. Foreman (Tex.Com.App.) 243 S.W. 479; Hays v. Gainesville St. Ry. Co., 70 Tex. 602, 8 S.W. 491, 8 Am.St.Rep. 624; Baker v. Shafter (Tex.Com.App.) 231 S.W. 349; St. Louis S. W. Ry. Co. of Texas v. Cambron, 62 Tex.Civ.App. 465, 131 S.W. 1130; St. Louis, B. & M. Ry. Co. v. Cole (Tex.Com.App.) 14 S.W.(2d) 1024.
Overruled.