Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, Texarkana
September 7, 1961
[*635] STEPHENSON, Justice.
This is a suit for personal injuries brought by appellant Emile Patterson, for his wife Elmer Patterson, and by appellant Willie Mae Ryals to recover damages from East Texas Motor Freight Lines and its driver Albert Olen Foster, arising out of a collision which occurred March 3, 1955 at an intersection in the City of Beaumont, [*636] Texas. Elmer Patterson was the driver and Willie Mae Ryals the passenger in an automobile in collision with a truck driven by Albert Olen Foster.
The case was submitted to the jury upon special issues. The jury found the appellant Elmer Patterson guilty of acts of negligence which proximately caused the accident and found the appellee Albert Olen Foster guilty of no act of negligence. The trial court rendered judgment for the appellees.
Appellants complain of the trial court's refusal to permit them to offer evidence to show the driver of the truck had been involved in other automobile accidents and had been charged with reckless driving and speeding on other occasions. No evidence was offered by appellees to show the truck driver was a safe and careful driver, or that he had had no other [**2] accidents. He was permitted to testify as to his experience. He had been driving a truck for 20 years, and had been employed on his present job for 11 years. The trial court properly refused to permit the testimony offered by appellants. The Supreme Court settled this question many years ago in Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. Johnson, 92 Tex. 380, 48 S.W. 568, 569:
"* * * We think the rule is well settled that ] when the question is whether or not a person has been negligent in doing, or in failing to do, a particular act, evidence is not admissible to show that he has been guilty of a similar act of negligence, or even habitually negligent upon a similar occasion (citing cases) * * *. The principle, as applicable to this class of cases generally, is that when the habit of care or of negligence, as the case may be, has no connection with the specific facts in evidence bearing upon the question of care, evidence of such care or habit is without sufficient probative force to effect the determination of the question * * *"
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
349 S.W.2d 634 *; 1961 Tex. App. LEXIS 1934 **
Emile Patterson et al., Appellants, v. East Texas Motor Freight Lines et al., Appellees
driver, truck, trial court, juror
Evidence, Admissibility, Conduct Evidence, Habit & Routine Practices, Torts, Proof, Evidence, Prior & Subsequent Events, Negligence, General Overview, Relevance, Relevant Evidence, Transportation Torts, Motor Vehicles, Civil Procedure, Jurors, Selection, Voir Dire, Appeals, Standards of Review, Damages, Collateral Source Rule, Jury Trials, Judgments, Relief From Judgments, Motions for New Trials