Feille v. San Antonio Traction Co.
48 Tex. Civ. App. 541, 1908 Tex. App. LEXIS 488, 107 S.W. 367 (1908)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a community property jurisdiction, a husband's contributory negligence bars recovery for his wife's personal injuries because any damages awarded would be community property, and the law will not permit a party to benefit from their own negligence. Furthermore, a plaintiff cannot recover for a defendant's negligence unless that negligence was the proximate cause of an actual, sustained injury.
Facts:
- Paul Feille and his wife, Hanna Feille, were riding together in a buggy driven by Paul Feille.
- While attempting to cross a streetcar track, their buggy was involved in a collision with an electric streetcar operated by the San Antonio Traction Company.
- Hanna Feille alleged she sustained personal injuries as a result of the collision.
- The Feilles alleged the streetcar motorman was negligent by failing to check the car's speed, failing to keep the car under control, and failing to ring a warning bell.
- Evidence presented suggested that Paul Feille's own negligence was the proximate cause of the collision.
- The evidence also failed to demonstrate that Hanna Feille sustained any actual injury from the collision.
Procedural Posture:
- Paul Feille and his wife, Hanna Feille, sued the San Antonio Traction Company in a Texas trial court to recover damages for personal injuries.
- The case was tried before a jury.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant, San Antonio Traction Company.
- The trial court entered a judgment for the defendant based on the jury's verdict.
- The plaintiffs, Paul and Hanna Feille, appealed the judgment to the Court of Civil Appeals of Texas.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
In a community property state, does a husband's contributory negligence bar a claim for damages for personal injuries sustained by his wife in the same incident?
Opinions:
Majority - Neill, Associate Justice
Yes, in a community property state, a husband's contributory negligence bars a claim for damages for his wife's personal injuries. The court rejected several of the plaintiffs' proposed jury instructions because they were legally flawed. The instructions improperly ignored the essential elements of proximate cause, contributory negligence, and the necessity of proving an actual injury. Critically, the court held that any damages awarded for a wife's personal injuries are considered community property. Therefore, allowing a recovery where the husband was contributorily negligent would permit him to profit from his own wrongdoing, which the law does not allow. The law will not 'coin an injury to a wife, which her husband’s negligence has helped to cause, into money and put it in his pocket.'
Analysis:
This case solidifies the doctrine of imputed contributory negligence between spouses in community property jurisdictions, where one spouse's fault can bar the other's recovery. This principle prevents a negligent party from indirectly benefiting from their own tortious conduct through the community property system. The decision also serves as a strong reaffirmation of the fundamental tenets of tort law: a plaintiff must prove not only a negligent act by the defendant but also that this act was the proximate cause of an actual injury to prevail. The court's meticulous breakdown of the flawed jury instructions underscores the importance of correctly stating all required legal elements for a claim to succeed.
