GRAVES, Justice.
Appellant’s statement of the nature and result of the trial of this suit — by the Eleventh District. Court — is conceded by
the appellees to be substantially correct, subject only to '“such additions as may be necessary thereto to a proper understanding of appellees' contentions”;
.“This is a suit-for damages brought by the parents of Larry Little, resulting from. a collision between a motorcycle driven by Larry Little and an automobile driven by the defendant, Thelbert Gary Tichenor, on South Shaver Street in the City of Pasadena, T exas.
“T. G. Tichenor, the father of Thelbert Gary Tichenor, was .also a Defendant, however the judgment provided that the Plaintiffs take nothing against T. G. Tichenor and as to (that) * * * Defendant the judgment of the trial court became final.
“The case was submitted to the jury and based upon the jury’s verdict the court rendered judgment against the Defendant, Thelbert Gary Tichenor, and in favor of Plaintiffs as heirs at law of Larry Little, for $7073.50, consisting of (1) $911.50 for funeral expenses, (2) $162.00 for - burial space and (3) $6000.00 for conscious pain and suffering.
“ * * * Plaintiffs were, also awarded the sum of $1600.00 for the wrongful death of Larry Little and-the additional' sum of $100.00 for grdve marker, and $300.00 for property'damage to the motorcycle.”
Appellant presents .his, appeal herein to this Court under fourteen points of error, in three groups, No. 1 embracing points 1 to 5, inclusive; ■ No. 2 embracing points 6, 7 and 8, and No, 3 covering points 9 to 14, inclusive.
The appellees likewise filed answering briefs to each and all of appellant’s assignments, and both sides further obliged this Court in oral arguments before it upon their different approaches to the controversy.
It is held that none of appellant’s presentments — in the state of the record here —should be sustained but that, to the contrary; since this Court finds that the record contains no'reversible error, the trial court’s judgment should be. 'in all things affirmed.
• Appellant’s first group- of assignments, ' at much length, attack the trial court’s refusal to reopen the case, after both parties had rested, to belatedly permit him to introduce into evidence a copy of the death-certificate of Larry Little, which recited, through the official giving it,, that “the death of Larry Little occurred at 7:55-p. m. from the causes and on the date stated''above.” -Whereas, the record otherwise-showed that the death occurred at 8:45 p. m.,-his boiled-down criticism of the judgment in- that respect being this: '“so that the jury have awarded damages for (a)physical- pain and suffering and (b) mental' pain and suffering for a period of 1 hour and 25 minutes, when - plaintiffs were only entitled to recover; if at all, for said (a)physical pain and suffering and (b) mental pain and suffering for a period of 35 minutes; as revealed by the death certificate,, which was made by plaintiff, V. H. Little, and which disclosed that Larry Little died at 7:55 P.M., on the -'day- of the accident instead of 8:45 P.M., as testified to by the said V. H.'Little on the-trial of said case.”'
The record shows that the death certificate, sought to bé so introduced for his. own purposes by the appellant, did not contain medical certification by the attending-physician upon Larry Little, hence it was. not prepared in accordance with the rules, and provisions of R.S. Article 4477, Vernon’s Ann.Civ.St, which details the way in. which such certificates can be used; it was. plainly inadmissible for the reasons ■ indicated as tending to show the time of the-death of Larry Little and since appellant offered it for all purposes, the court violated no discretion in excluding it in its; entirety. Union Central Life Insurance Co. v. Boulware, Tex.Civ.App., 238 S.W.2d 722, page 726; also Service Mutual Insurance Co. of Texas v. Banke, Tex.Civ.App., 155 S.W.2d 668, 669, In the last cited case the court says: “We sustain appellant’s contentions and hold that the recitals in the-death certificate were inadmissible, and that having been admitted, .were .incompetent as-evidence upon the. issue of the circumstances or cause 'of decedent’s death.” See also.
Folse v. Monroe, Tex.Civ.App., 190 S.W.2d 604.
Finally, on that point, since' the statute cited requires the medical certification portion of. the certificate to he. filled out by the attending physician, and since that was not done in this instance, the trial court did not err in its. ruling since the statutes making the death certificate admissible .at all plainly contemplate that each section of it .must be filled out by the person designated for that purpose, by R.S. Article 4472, supra. ,
Appellant next. contends,. at much length, that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury’s answer to Specia} Issue No. 46, as submitted by the court, as follows: “Do you find from a- preponderance of the evidence that Larry Little was sufficiently conscious for some period of time from the moment of the collision in question to the timé' of his death that he was aware of any suffering, physical or - mental,' that he may have had, if he, in fact, had any physical or mental suffering?” The jury answered this “We'do.”
This Court has carefully examined the. statement of facts on this subject and as a result it is .unable to agree with appel-. lant’s position. . According, to what this Court must find to have been the time be-, tween the collision and the death of Larry Little, it is that the collision occurred at approximately 7:20 in the evening and that Larry’s death occurred at 8:45 p. m.; so that his condition during the one h'otír’ and 25 minutes intervening’ between his injury and death is the issue involved. When the entire testimony is looked at, it seems clear to this Court that the jury had ample evidence for its finding- that Larry Little was at least sufficiently conscious during, indeed, much of that fateful hour as to be aware “of suffering, physical or mental.” - It is not deemed’necessary to detail that testimony from -the several witnesses' who observed him. during practically' the whole' of that' intervening .period. His-father’s testimony alone would'support the jury’s-finding', since-he got-to'the scene-of-the accident-just-as they were.'picking up Larry'and putting him into the ambulance; he rode in the- ambulance sitting right beside him during the journey from the scene of 'the' accident- to the hospital: He described the son’s condition in ’ detail and while he- said his son did iiot speak to him- during the trip, it Was 'evident to him that' he was “attempting' to say something, more than once.” That he was making a sound with his mouth, was groaning-and gave.every indication that he was not- only suffering great pain but that he was making every effort to speak "as against a choking condition, apparently from blood coming up in his mouth, which prevented it; that Larry raised up, sat up, pulled at his mouth, which had dirt and blood choking ¾ tip, and that it looked to him like Larry was trying to clean his mouth sufficiently to allow him to talk, but did not succeed in doing so.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
GRAVES, Justice.
Appellant’s statement of the nature and result of the trial of this suit — by the Eleventh District. Court — is conceded by
the appellees to be substantially correct, subject only to '“such additions as may be necessary thereto to a proper understanding of appellees' contentions”;
.“This is a suit-for damages brought by the parents of Larry Little, resulting from. a collision between a motorcycle driven by Larry Little and an automobile driven by the defendant, Thelbert Gary Tichenor, on South Shaver Street in the City of Pasadena, T exas.
“T. G. Tichenor, the father of Thelbert Gary Tichenor, was .also a Defendant, however the judgment provided that the Plaintiffs take nothing against T. G. Tichenor and as to (that) * * * Defendant the judgment of the trial court became final.
“The case was submitted to the jury and based upon the jury’s verdict the court rendered judgment against the Defendant, Thelbert Gary Tichenor, and in favor of Plaintiffs as heirs at law of Larry Little, for $7073.50, consisting of (1) $911.50 for funeral expenses, (2) $162.00 for - burial space and (3) $6000.00 for conscious pain and suffering.
“ * * * Plaintiffs were, also awarded the sum of $1600.00 for the wrongful death of Larry Little and-the additional' sum of $100.00 for grdve marker, and $300.00 for property'damage to the motorcycle.”
Appellant presents .his, appeal herein to this Court under fourteen points of error, in three groups, No. 1 embracing points 1 to 5, inclusive; ■ No. 2 embracing points 6, 7 and 8, and No, 3 covering points 9 to 14, inclusive.
The appellees likewise filed answering briefs to each and all of appellant’s assignments, and both sides further obliged this Court in oral arguments before it upon their different approaches to the controversy.
It is held that none of appellant’s presentments — in the state of the record here —should be sustained but that, to the contrary; since this Court finds that the record contains no'reversible error, the trial court’s judgment should be. 'in all things affirmed.
• Appellant’s first group- of assignments, ' at much length, attack the trial court’s refusal to reopen the case, after both parties had rested, to belatedly permit him to introduce into evidence a copy of the death-certificate of Larry Little, which recited, through the official giving it,, that “the death of Larry Little occurred at 7:55-p. m. from the causes and on the date stated''above.” -Whereas, the record otherwise-showed that the death occurred at 8:45 p. m.,-his boiled-down criticism of the judgment in- that respect being this: '“so that the jury have awarded damages for (a)physical- pain and suffering and (b) mental' pain and suffering for a period of 1 hour and 25 minutes, when - plaintiffs were only entitled to recover; if at all, for said (a)physical pain and suffering and (b) mental pain and suffering for a period of 35 minutes; as revealed by the death certificate,, which was made by plaintiff, V. H. Little, and which disclosed that Larry Little died at 7:55 P.M., on the -'day- of the accident instead of 8:45 P.M., as testified to by the said V. H.'Little on the-trial of said case.”'
The record shows that the death certificate, sought to bé so introduced for his. own purposes by the appellant, did not contain medical certification by the attending-physician upon Larry Little, hence it was. not prepared in accordance with the rules, and provisions of R.S. Article 4477, Vernon’s Ann.Civ.St, which details the way in. which such certificates can be used; it was. plainly inadmissible for the reasons ■ indicated as tending to show the time of the-death of Larry Little and since appellant offered it for all purposes, the court violated no discretion in excluding it in its; entirety. Union Central Life Insurance Co. v. Boulware, Tex.Civ.App., 238 S.W.2d 722, page 726; also Service Mutual Insurance Co. of Texas v. Banke, Tex.Civ.App., 155 S.W.2d 668, 669, In the last cited case the court says: “We sustain appellant’s contentions and hold that the recitals in the-death certificate were inadmissible, and that having been admitted, .were .incompetent as-evidence upon the. issue of the circumstances or cause 'of decedent’s death.” See also.
Folse v. Monroe, Tex.Civ.App., 190 S.W.2d 604.
Finally, on that point, since' the statute cited requires the medical certification portion of. the certificate to he. filled out by the attending physician, and since that was not done in this instance, the trial court did not err in its. ruling since the statutes making the death certificate admissible .at all plainly contemplate that each section of it .must be filled out by the person designated for that purpose, by R.S. Article 4472, supra. ,
Appellant next. contends,. at much length, that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury’s answer to Specia} Issue No. 46, as submitted by the court, as follows: “Do you find from a- preponderance of the evidence that Larry Little was sufficiently conscious for some period of time from the moment of the collision in question to the timé' of his death that he was aware of any suffering, physical or - mental,' that he may have had, if he, in fact, had any physical or mental suffering?” The jury answered this “We'do.”
This Court has carefully examined the. statement of facts on this subject and as a result it is .unable to agree with appel-. lant’s position. . According, to what this Court must find to have been the time be-, tween the collision and the death of Larry Little, it is that the collision occurred at approximately 7:20 in the evening and that Larry’s death occurred at 8:45 p. m.; so that his condition during the one h'otír’ and 25 minutes intervening’ between his injury and death is the issue involved. When the entire testimony is looked at, it seems clear to this Court that the jury had ample evidence for its finding- that Larry Little was at least sufficiently conscious during, indeed, much of that fateful hour as to be aware “of suffering, physical or mental.” - It is not deemed’necessary to detail that testimony from -the several witnesses' who observed him. during practically' the whole' of that' intervening .period. His-father’s testimony alone would'support the jury’s-finding', since-he got-to'the scene-of-the accident-just-as they were.'picking up Larry'and putting him into the ambulance; he rode in the- ambulance sitting right beside him during the journey from the scene of 'the' accident- to the hospital: He described the son’s condition in ’ detail and while he- said his son did iiot speak to him- during the trip, it Was 'evident to him that' he was “attempting' to say something, more than once.” That he was making a sound with his mouth, was groaning-and gave.every indication that he was not- only suffering great pain but that he was making every effort to speak "as against a choking condition, apparently from blood coming up in his mouth, which prevented it; that Larry raised up, sat up, pulled at his mouth, which had dirt and blood choking ¾ tip, and that it looked to him like Larry was trying to clean his mouth sufficiently to allow him to talk, but did not succeed in doing so.
It is deemed unnecessary to expand the record here óf á field of testimón-y that went to the jury upon this inquiry which the trial court, appears to- have correctly. submitted for its arbitrament in its Special Issue No. 46. This Court, therefore, overrules appellant’s .contention, that such answer was unsupported and cites these, among other, authorities as sustaining its holding upon the subject: Sharpe v. Munoz, Tex.Civ.App., 256 S.W.2d 890, C.C.A., refused, NRE: Collins v. Smith, Tex.Civ. App., 170 S.W.2d 562, C.C.A., affirmed 142 Tex. 36, 175 S.W.2d 407.
In' his' concluding assignment,1 appellant attacks the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the jury’s a'hrard of $6,000, in answer ’to'-Special Issue 'Not 47, as submitted by the coúft, ta V. H. Little and' Ruby Little, as"'the1 heirs at law bf'théir scffi, Larry;
There can be -no doubt thát the record in this cause shows» that these poor- parents, for-practically to whole hour and 25 minutes following the terrible -injury to their son, were ■-compelled -to witness:* his conscious' pain -and suffering; • that they -were compelled to witness his facial expressions,
denoting .great pain, .to hear his groaning, witness his violent, movement's, and generally to absorb the evidences of. his terrible condition for practically the whole time from the moment of his injury to the time of his death. This evidence alone, in this Coprt’s view, is sufficient to support the finding based upon mental suffering on the part of the deceased child.
Authorities are not wanting.
The conclusions stated require an affirmance of' the judgment. It will be so ordered.
Affirmed.