Court Opinion

ID: 9833500
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:45:47.816043+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:03.540617
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellees insist that we erred in sustaining errors assigned to the refusal of the trial court to submit defendant’s requested issues Nos. 3 and 4, copied and discussed in our original opinion, and its requested special issues Nos. 10 and 11, not copied in our original opinion, but which were as follows :
“No. 10: Was the failure on the part of A. J. Bailey to pass the defendant’s truck to the right or south side of said truck neg'-ligence ?”
“No. 11: Was the failure on the part of A. J. Bailey to pass defendant’s truck to the right or south side of said truck a proximate cause of the collision in question?”
It is argued that those issues were erroneous and properly refused, because on the weight of the evidence, and because they failed to place upon defendant the burden of proof to sustain affirmative findings thereon in defendant’s favor.
This announcement in 41 Tex.Jur.,. par. 291, page 1137, is well sustained by numerous decisions cited by the author: “But as to uncontroverted facts, it is not erroneous for the court to assume their existence; and the same is true as to facts established conclusively by the evidence.”
Ordinarily the burden of proof is on the defendant to sustain by a preponderance of evidence defendant’s pleading of contributory negligence. 30 Tex.Jur., para. 135, page 809. But where the undisputed evidence prima facie establishes contributory negligence of plaintiff as a matter of law, then it is error for the court to instruct the jury that the burden of proof on that issue is on the defendant. Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Shieder, 88 Tex. 152, 30' S.W. 902, 28 L.R.A. 538; Davis v. Estes,. Tex.Com.App., 44 S.W.2d 952, and decisions there cited. It is likewise error to impose the burden of proof on defendant to-show contributory negligence of plaintiff,, if plaintiff’s own testimony fends to show-such negligence. Chicago, R. I. & G. R. Co. v. Clay, 55 Tex.Civ.App. 526, 119 S.W.. 730, error refused; Texas & N. O. R. Co. v. Conway, 44 Tex.Civ.App. 68, 98 S.W. 1070, error refused; Stehling v. Johnston, Tex.Civ.App., 32 S.W.2d 696, error refused; Texas Traction Co. v. Wiley, Tex.Civ. App., 164 S.W. 1028; Texas Portland Cement & Lime Co. v. Ross, 35 Tex.Civ. App. 597, 81 S.W. 94; Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Hill, 95 Tex. 629, 69 S.W. 136; Texas & Pacific R. Co. v. Reed, 88 Tex. 439, 31 S.W. 1058; Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. of Texas v. Plunkett, Tex.Civ.App., 103 S.W. 663.
That Bailey, the driver of plaintiffs’ car, did fail to pass the Riley car south of its rear end and that he could have done so even if it were necessary for him to wait for an instant for space to do so, was of itself sufficient to warrant a finding that he was guilty of negligence in failing to do so. In view of that situation it would have been error to place the burden of proof as to that issue on the defendant.
*823In their reply to those criticisms above shown, appellant has cited different statutes and numerous decisions to support the contention that even if those issues were open to those objections, nevertheless they were sufficient to point out the defendant’s right to have those defenses submitted, and it then became the duty of the court to submit those issues in proper form.
Appellant did not request the court to submit those defenses in correct form if he found the ones requested were not correct as written, and in the absence of such a request and its refusal, they are in no position here to urge the contention so made. Kenney v. La Grone, Tex. Com. App., 93 S.W.2d 397, by Supreme Court.
In view of another trial, we deem it proper to discuss other assignments of error which were not discussed on original hearing, because we deemed it unnecessary. They will now be discussed, and by reason thereof, appellees will be given leave to file a second motion for rehearing, if desired.
One of those assignments is to the refusal of the court to submit requested issues Nos. 6 and 7, which read:
“No. 6: Was the failure on the part of A. J. Bailey to sound his horn as he approached the car of M. Riley negligence?
“No. 7: Was the failure on the part of A. J. Bailey to sound his horn as he approached the car of M. Riley a proximate ■cause of-the collision in question?”
Art. 801, subd. K, of the Penal Code, reads: “The person in charge of any vehicle upon any public highway before turning, stopping or changing the course ■of such vehicle shall see first that there is sufficient space for such movement to be made in safety, and if the movement or op- • eration of other vehicles may reasonably be affected by such turning, stopping or changing of course, shall give plainly visible or audible signal to the person operating, driving or in charge of such vehicle of his intentions so to turn, stop or change said course.”
Bailey testified he did not ■sound his horn before turning and changing the course of his car, in order to pass around the Riley car, and back to the south side of Belknap. His failure so to do was negligence per se, as held by the Commission of Appeals in the case of Texas Company v. Betterton, 126 Tex. 359, 88 S.W.2d 1039; and the jury would have been warranted in finding that such violation of the statute by Bailey was a proximate cause of the collision in controversy, in that, with such warning Riley might probably have stopped or slowed down his car to enable Bailey to pass around him to the north. Hence, there was reversible error in the court’s refusal to submit the requested issues last noted. Greer v. Thaman, 55 S. W.2d 519, by Commission of Appeals, with express approval of the Supreme Court; and other decisions cited in our original opinion.
Another assignment is to the refusal to submit defendant’s requested issues Nos. 1 and 2, reading:
“No. 1: Was the failure on the part of A. Js. Bailey to apply the brakes on the Ford automobile as he approached the car of M. Riley on the occasion in question negligence ?”
“No. 2: Was such negligence on the part of A. J. Bailey, if any, in failing to apply the brakes on his car, as inquired about above, a proximate cause of the collision in question ?”
In view of Bailey’s admission on the witness stand of his failure to apply his brakes, in connection with his further testimony of the speed he was traveling at the time of the accident and other circumstances in connection therewith, we conclude that this assignment should also be sustained. Authorities cited supra.
And, under the authorities noted above, requested issues last noted, being Nos. 6, 7, 1 and 2, as written, were not erroneous for failure to place upon the defendant the burden of proof to procure findings thereon in its favor.
In view of a reversal of the judgment and ordering a new trial, the assignment presenting error for excessiveness of damages allowed plaintiffs will not be determined.
Motion for rehearing overruled.