Red Top Cab Co. v. Capps

Majority - Hughes, Justice

Yes, a state court does have jurisdiction to hear a personal injury case arising from an accident on a U.S. military reservation with exclusive federal jurisdiction. The court affirmed that a cause of action for personal injuries is transitory and may be entertained wherever personal jurisdiction over the parties can be maintained, regardless of whether the event occurred on territory under exclusive federal jurisdiction. This principle is supported by precedent such as Schaff v. Ellison, which held that such actions could be enforced in Texas courts, and Mater v. Holley, which noted that the Supreme Court has affirmed state court jurisdiction in similar circumstances (Ohio River Contract Co. v. Gordon and Chicago Rock Island & Pacific Ry. Co. v. McGlinn). Therefore, the trial court properly overruled the plea to jurisdiction. No, a plaintiff's attorney's "Golden Rule" argument, asking the jury to place themselves in the plaintiff's shoes, is not reversible error when the trial court sustains an objection and provides a curative instruction to the jury. The court acknowledged that such an argument is "highly improper and prejudicial," but held that Supreme Court precedent establishes that the error of such an argument is cured when the trial court grants a request to instruct the jury not to consider it, citing Fambrough v. Wagley and Texas & N. O. R. Co. v. Sturgeon. No, it is not reversible error for a jury to take an unadmitted blackboard drawing of the accident scene into deliberations if the appellant fails to show the jury used it or suffered probable injury. While Rule 281 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure allows "written evidence," the court relied on Triangle Cab Co. v. Taylor, where no jury misconduct was found when the jury took a blackboard into deliberations but did not refer to it. The burden was on the appellant, Babin, to show both jury misconduct and probable injury resulting from it, which he failed to do because no evidence was heard on the motion for new trial regarding the blackboard's use. No, it is not proper to submit a jury issue on "unavoidable accident" if it is framed to apply only as to the negligence of one specific defendant. An accident is considered "unavoidable" only if it happened without the negligence of any party to the suit. The court cited Wheeler v. Glazer, which held it was not error to refuse a charge that an accident was unavoidable as to one party if it occurred without his negligence. Therefore, Babin's requested issue, limited to his own negligence, was improper. The court also found sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings of negligence against Babin, including failure to stop, maintain proper lookout, control speed, and maintain proper control of his car. Babin’s other points regarding excessive judgment and indemnity were waived because they were not briefed.