Yancey v. Garretson

Court of Appeals of Texas

Yancey v. Garretson

425 S.W.2d 832

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedFebruary 29, 1968

DocketNo. 4214

StatusPublished

This text of 425 S.W.2d 832 (Yancey v. Garretson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Yancey v. Garretson, 425 S.W.2d 832 (Tex. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

WALTER, Justice.

Mrs. Ermil C. Yancey and her husband filed suit against James W. Garretson for damages resulting from an automobile collision. The jury found the defendant guilty of several acts of negligence and that each was a proximate cause of the collision. It also found that Mrs. Yancey failed to keep a proper lookout and that such failure was a proximate cause of the collision. The court rendered a judgment that plaintiffs take nothing. The plaintiffs have appealed.

They contend the court erred in refusing to grant them a new trial because the findings that Mrs. Yancey failed to keep a proper lookout and that such failure was a proximate cause of the collision are so contrary to the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be wrong and unjust.

We have considered all the evidence and find that the jury’s answers that Mrs. Yancey failed to keep a proper lookout which was a proximate cause of the collision are not contrary to the overwhelming weight and preponderance of the evidence. In re King’s Estate, 150 Tex. 662, 244 S.W.2d 660.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

WALTER, Justice.

Mrs. Ermil C. Yancey and her husband filed suit against James W. Garretson for damages resulting from an automobile collision. The jury found the defendant guilty of several acts of negligence and that each was a proximate cause of the collision. It also found that Mrs. Yancey failed to keep a proper lookout and that such failure was a proximate cause of the collision. The court rendered a judgment that plaintiffs take nothing. The plaintiffs have appealed.

They contend the court erred in refusing to grant them a new trial because the findings that Mrs. Yancey failed to keep a proper lookout and that such failure was a proximate cause of the collision are so contrary to the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be wrong and unjust.

We have considered all the evidence and find that the jury’s answers that Mrs. Yancey failed to keep a proper lookout which was a proximate cause of the collision are not contrary to the overwhelming weight and preponderance of the evidence. In re King’s Estate, 150 Tex. 662, 244 S.W.2d 660.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

425 S.W.2d 832, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/yancey-v-garretson-texapp-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack