Court Opinion

ID: 9778528
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 21:11:19.377947+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:33:11.296552
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
PER CURIAM.
Appellants, in their motion for rehearing, assert that the Court of Civil Appeals erred as follows: In not holding that the evidence conclusively shows, as a matter of law, that appellee’s truck was negligently driven on the wrong side of the highway at and prior to the time of the collision, and that such negligence was the proximate cause of the accident in question, there being no probative evidence to the contrary; in failing and refusing to hold that the appellee or his driver was contributorily negligent in failing to yield one-half of the highway to the appellants at and prior to the time of the collision; in failing and refusing to pass upon the question that the verdict of the jury, in answer to Special Issue Number 6, to the effect that appellants were operating their truck on the wrong side of the highway, is so contrary to the overwhelming .weight of. the evidence as to be clearly wrong and unjust; in failing and refusing to pass on a question that the verdict of the jury, in answer to Special Issue Number 7, to the effect that appellants’ driver was negligent in operating appellants’ truck on the wrong side of the. highway, is so contrary to the overwhelming weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be clearly wrong and unjust. The same objection was urged as to the answer to Special Issues Number 8 and 12. Each and all of the assignments of error presented by appellants in their motion for rehearing were presented in their original .presentation of the case in *860this court, with the exception of this, that we did not consider the testimony in the light of King v. King, infra, and all of the same were overruled by the court.
In our original opinion we referred to the matter as assigned as error by the appellants, as, “no evidence”, insufficient evidence”, and “contrary and opposed to the overwhelming and preponderating weight of'all the évidence as tó be clearly wrong and unjust.”
Mr. Williams, driver of appellants’ truck and trailer, testified: at the time of the collision he was driving 55 or 60 miles per hour and could have been driving 70 but didn’t think so; just before the ■ collision he was leaning in the glove compartment on the truck that was about ,a yard from the steering wheel and that: he had only his left hand on the steering wheel; that he was looking towards the glove compartment and took, his eyes off of the road and that at the time of the impact didn’t have his eyes on the road; when the collision hapr pened he went over to the left side and went about half-way across the left side; appellants’ left front fender was damaged; appellee’s left front fender was not damaged and Wilson did not know what side of the road he was on at the time of the impact.
Mr. Word, driver of appellee’s truck and trailer, testified: He was on the right side of the road as they were meeting and he was looking where he was going; he was driving on his side of the road; as they were meeting and everything looked all fight just like were going to pass and then appeared as though Williams was coming at' him and that just before the collision he saw the lights of William’s truck turn over in Word’s direction and on Word’s side of the road.
In our original -opinion, and in considering appellants’ motion for rehearing, we have considered the evidence in this case in the light of King v. King, Tex.Civ.App., 244 S.W.2d 660 and are of the opinion that appellants’ motion for rehearing should be overruled and the same is accordingly, in all things, overruled.