Rosas v. Shafer

Texas Supreme Court

Rosas v. Shafer

415 S.W.2d 889, 10 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 400, 1967 Tex. LEXIS 273

CourtTexas Supreme Court

DecidedMay 24, 1967

DocketB-143

StatusPublished

Cited by31 cases

This text of 415 S.W.2d 889 (Rosas v. Shafer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Rosas v. Shafer, 415 S.W.2d 889, 10 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 400, 1967 Tex. LEXIS 273 (Tex. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiffs sued for personal injuries arising out of a head-on collision. Judgment was for the defendants by reason of jury findings that (1) the defendant driver was not negligent in the manner in which he drove his car, (2) the plaintiff, Gilbert Rosas, was negligent in the manner in which he drove, and (3) plaintiffs, Gilbert and Evangalene Rosas, were on a joint enterprise at the time of the collision. Plaintiffs urged in the court of civil appeals that the findings had no support in the evidence. The intermediate court affirmed the judgment because the plaintiffs failed to preserve their points either by motion for instructed verdict, objections to the issues, or motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Plaintiffs did, however, file a motion for new trial and distinctly complained that each of the findings had no support in the evidence. Since plaintiffs’ contentions were made clear to the court in time for the court to correct *890 any error, if any existed, there was a predicate for the “no evidence” points on appeal. City of Austin v. Daniels, 160 Tex. 628, 335 S.W.2d 753, 758-759, 81 A.L.R.2d 1180 (1960). The judgment of the court of civil appeals is correct, however, since there was evidence in the record which absolved the defendant driver of negligence.

The application for writ of error is refused, no reversible error. Rule 483, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiffs sued for personal injuries arising out of a head-on collision. Judgment was for the defendants by reason of jury findings that (1) the defendant driver was not negligent in the manner in which he drove his car, (2) the plaintiff, Gilbert Rosas, was negligent in the manner in which he drove, and (3) plaintiffs, Gilbert and Evangalene Rosas, were on a joint enterprise at the time of the collision. Plaintiffs urged in the court of civil appeals that the findings had no support in the evidence. The intermediate court affirmed the judgment because the plaintiffs failed to preserve their points either by motion for instructed verdict, objections to the issues, or motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Plaintiffs did, however, file a motion for new trial and distinctly complained that each of the findings had no support in the evidence. Since plaintiffs’ contentions were made clear to the court in time for the court to correct *890 any error, if any existed, there was a predicate for the “no evidence” points on appeal. City of Austin v. Daniels, 160 Tex. 628, 335 S.W.2d 753, 758-759, 81 A.L.R.2d 1180 (1960). The judgment of the court of civil appeals is correct, however, since there was evidence in the record which absolved the defendant driver of negligence.

The application for writ of error is refused, no reversible error. Rule 483, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

415 S.W.2d 889, 10 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 400, 1967 Tex. LEXIS 273, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosas-v-shafer-tex-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack