Smith v. Smith

Texas Supreme Court

Smith v. Smith

478 S.W.2d 81, 15 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 262, 1972 Tex. LEXIS 213

CourtTexas Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 29, 1972

DocketNo. B-3143

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 478 S.W.2d 81 (Smith v. Smith) 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

Smith v. Smith, 478 S.W.2d 81, 15 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 262, 1972 Tex. LEXIS 213 (Tex. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

ON APPLICATION WRIT OF ERROR

PER CURIAM.

This suit was brought by James Smith and wife, Racine Smith, to recover damages for injuries sustained by the latter in an automobile collision. James Smith was driving one of the automobiles involved in the collision, and Racine Smith was a passenger in the vehicle. There are two defendants. One is Horace Rowe, who was driving an automobile that went into a skid and came to rest across the lane in which the plaintiffs’ vehicle was traveling. The other defendant is Ola Smith whose automobile ran into the rear of plaintiffs’ vehicle after it had stopped.

The jury found that the accident was proximately caused by the negligence of Horace Rowe in stopping too suddenly, the negligence of Ola Smith in following too closely, and the contributory negligence of James Smith in failing to drive to the right of the Rowe automobile and in permitting his vehicle to remain in the street. The trial court rendered judgment that plaintiffs take nothing, but the Court of Civil Appeals reversed and rendered judgment in plaintiffs’ favor for the $15,600.00 damages assessed by the jury. 473 S.W.2d 299.

The Court of Civil Appeals held: (1) that the $5,600.00 awarded to Racine Smith by the jury for pain and suffering constitutes her separate property and that she is entitled to recover that amount despite the contributory negligence of her husband; and (2) that there is no evidence to support the findings of contributory negligence. We agree with the latter holding and it is unnecessary to determine at this time and in this case whether the other conclusion of the Court of Civil Appeals is sound. See Franco v. Graham, Tex.Civ. App., 470 S.W.2d 429 (writ of error granted and case now under submission in this Court). The application for writ of error is refused, no reversible error.

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

ON APPLICATION WRIT OF ERROR

PER CURIAM.

This suit was brought by James Smith and wife, Racine Smith, to recover damages for injuries sustained by the latter in an automobile collision. James Smith was driving one of the automobiles involved in the collision, and Racine Smith was a passenger in the vehicle. There are two defendants. One is Horace Rowe, who was driving an automobile that went into a skid and came to rest across the lane in which the plaintiffs’ vehicle was traveling. The other defendant is Ola Smith whose automobile ran into the rear of plaintiffs’ vehicle after it had stopped.

The jury found that the accident was proximately caused by the negligence of Horace Rowe in stopping too suddenly, the negligence of Ola Smith in following too closely, and the contributory negligence of James Smith in failing to drive to the right of the Rowe automobile and in permitting his vehicle to remain in the street. The trial court rendered judgment that plaintiffs take nothing, but the Court of Civil Appeals reversed and rendered judgment in plaintiffs’ favor for the $15,600.00 damages assessed by the jury. 473 S.W.2d 299.

The Court of Civil Appeals held: (1) that the $5,600.00 awarded to Racine Smith by the jury for pain and suffering constitutes her separate property and that she is entitled to recover that amount despite the contributory negligence of her husband; and (2) that there is no evidence to support the findings of contributory negligence. We agree with the latter holding and it is unnecessary to determine at this time and in this case whether the other conclusion of the Court of Civil Appeals is sound. See Franco v. Graham, Tex.Civ. App., 470 S.W.2d 429 (writ of error granted and case now under submission in this Court). The application for writ of error is refused, no reversible error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

478 S.W.2d 81, 15 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 262, 1972 Tex. LEXIS 213, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-smith-tex-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack