Court Opinion

ID: 9831600
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:14:19.341186+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:36.370241
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
It is insisted in the motion that we erred in holding that plaintiffs’ petition was good as against a general demurrer, in that it was necessary „for the plaintiffs to allege the degree of negligence chargeable to the defendant, and that in alleging that the position and condition in which plaintiffs’ ear was “in sufficient time to have slowed down the speed of said truck tó have stopped same and to have driven same to either side of said ruts before he (Oastevens) drove said truck into said ruts” requires a greater degree of diligence than was necessary. In other words, that the law only required the driver of the truck to use ordinary care. It is further insisted that although there is no statement of facts which can be. considered, the issues submitted by the court are not supported by the pleadings.
As said in Prince v. I. &. G. N Ry. Co., 64 Tex. 144, 147:
“The petition alleges that the plaintiff was injured through the negligence of the company’s servants, which includes all degrees ofj negligence, slight, ordinary* and gross, and there was no special exception complaining that the kind of negligence was not stated, even if such an exception could have prevailed.”
The trial judge had sustained a general demurrer and special exceptions to the petition in that case, and the Supreme Court reversed the judgment.
As we understand the rule, the plaintiff is not required to allege the particular degree of negligence. He may charge negligence generally or gross negligencd, and under such allegations he must, as stated in the original opinion, prove only a sufficient degree of negligence to entitle him to recover. Texas Mexican Ry. Co. v. De Hernandez, 49 Tex. Civ. App. 360, 108 S. W. 765; Avey v. G., H. & S. A. Ry. Co., 81 Tex. 243, 16 S. W. 1015, 26 Am. St. Rep. 809.
In determining the question whether the pleadings are sufficient to support the charge of the court or the issues submitted, we. must take into consideration the pleadings of both parties, and when this is done, there is no doubt that the court submitted only such issues as were raised, by the pleadings.
It is further contended that special issue No. 4-a is not supported by the pleadings, in that plaintiffs do not allege that they were in a perilous position. They plead facte which show that they were in such position and it was not necessary for them to use the words “perilous position.” If they had, we may presume that defendant would have objected to such statement on the ground that it was a conclusion of the pleader, as they did to that portion of paragraph 2 of the petition whieh alleges that the truck was negligently and carelessly driven and to that portion, of paragraph 3 which alleges that it was negligence and carelessness for Castevens to drive the truck at a fast rate of speed into the ruts and against plaintiffs’ car.
The other contentions urged in the motion have been disposed of in the original opinion and will not be further discussed. The motion is therefore overruled.